Obama's Final Betrayal

[utgibbs]

Another example of you just saying words and having no idea what they might mean when thrown together. There are hordes of examples of gov't driven public and private markets. Every single one of them is a disaster, including military healthcare and medicare.

I'm aware of the maxims of Adam Smith, likely moreso than you, but why does an efficient, fair or even useful tax code need to rely heavily on Adam Smith. He wasn't the arbiter of all things right and fair.

Your last statement is just blather. When economics is like nuclear physics to you, avoid the conversation or stick to telling us senseless hypothetical crap about Fulmer winning. Seems to me that roughly one of you hard lefties in here knows enough econ to have the conversation and you are not him.

Oh, I think your dog might be able to figure it out then, BPV.

I certainly DON'T believe AS is the arbiter of all things good and fair. But he helps bring the conversation back from the abyss and into a modicum of good common sense. Look at Fair Tax (sic) as an example.

Ol' Adam nailed taxes though. He got that right as rain.

it ain't hypothetical. Only the General won more than Fulmer.

 

[utgibbs]

but they can't just be dumped on top of our current system like some are trying to do now

As I say, we aren't far apart as y'all pretend.

 

[bam15]

but they can't just be dumped on top of our current system like some are trying to do now

No.

Most definitely not when the economy is still in tatters.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Oh, I think your dog might be able to figure it out then, BPV.

I certainly DON'T believe AS is the arbiter of all things good and fair. But he helps bring the conversation back from the abyss and into a modicum of good common sense. Look at Fair Tax (sic) as an example.

Ol' Adam nailed taxes though. He got that right as rain.

it ain't hypothetical. Only the General won more than Fulmer.

No single philosopher / economist has it all right and no system can be the solution, especially as we continue to let our emotions pile on more and more purely frictional expense to our economy. We'll always have the bar moving in the wrong direction as far as governmental expense goes because politicians are afraid to say no.

 

[bam15]

and honestly, I don't mind eating the burden or even more. We all decry it, but understand tax burden as a necessary evil. I simply can't fathom that we, as a nation, are OK with creating a government that will be a solution to our problems and increase the growth rate of our dependency / dependent population. Makes no sense to me, in a nation whose strength is steeped in independence.

I had a class with a hardcore Marxist as my prof. Dude was a complete loon, and had this imbecilic principle that our nation would "progress" to complete Socialism/Marxism. You wonder why it makes no sense, but in the class of 40, no one apparently cared except me. It's safe to say, that a "capitalist pig-dog" such as my self didn't take it too kindly on the evaluation form.

 

[utvolpj]

I had a class with a hardcore Marxist as my prof. Dude was a complete loon, and had this imbecilic principle that our nation would "progress" to complete Socialism/Marxism. You wonder why it makes no sense, but in the class of 40, no one apparently cared except me. It's safe to say, that a "capitalist pig-dog" such as my self didn't take it too kindly on the evaluation form.

sounds similar to the 3rd world econ class I had to take

 

[sjt18]

This is a good point, sjt, however it needs some qualification.

1. Fair Tax is Orwellian propaganda. It is regressive which is unfair. HOWEVER, it meets two tenets of Adam Smith - simple and transparent. A flat and progressive system is very, very good.

It is NOT regressive at all. How much have you read about it?

Each person gets a pre-bate for the amount of tax they would pay on essentials. Used items are not taxed- like used cars and re-sold houses. The Fair Tax specifically reaches the "rich" who can use the tax code a la John Kerry and Warren Buffett to avoid paying "their fair share".

We must tax carbon, but we should offset that with a dividend.

No. This is unnecessary, inefficient, and most decidely "regressive" in nature.

3. You don't want the tax code to influence behaviour - ostensibly it should be a matter of democratic consensus - but you approve of "markets" adjusting prices? Especially when those markets are generally controlled by an oligopoly?

Market prices in a well discipline market are determined by very basic economic principles.

It has been Keynesian and Progressive influences in gov't over the last 70 that have allowed those oligopolies to re-develop. They were "bad" in the early years of Progressivism when gov't didn't control them... but now "good" according to Progressives since gov't does.

You keep coming up with the right objections but the wrong answers to those objections. Once again, this is NOT a case where gov't needs to get deeply involved and take sides. It is a case where gov't needs to be an impartial referree and enforce monopoly/anti-trust laws.

I have said before but will repeat: all centralizations of power are a threat to the rights, liberties, and property of "The People". That includes big business, big gov't, big labor, big academia, big media (MSM), big religion, etc.

Gov't should never side with any of these institutions... but since the era of big gov't began in the 30's... it has.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I had a class with a hardcore Marxist as my prof. Dude was a complete loon, and had this imbecilic principle that our nation would "progress" to complete Socialism/Marxism. You wonder why it makes no sense, but in the class of 40, no one apparently cared except me. It's safe to say, that a "capitalist pig-dog" such as my self didn't take it too kindly on the evaluation form.

None of those guys ever want to talk about the ultimate failure of systems that fail to account for the humans involved in making them work. Complete socialism simply doesn't impound human needs, differences, ingenuity, challenge, etc, etc, etc. No single system is the best for everyone, but the one best for the less motivated and least capable would be socialism, all the time every time.

 

[bam15]

sounds similar to the 3rd world econ class I had to take

If it were up to this dude, Chairman Mao would be running the United States. It's scary, when you multiply these loons across the country, all partaking in our education system.

 

[BigPapaVol]

If it were up to this dude, Chairman Mao would be running the United States. It's scary, when you multiply these loons across the country, all partaking in our education system.

not just partaking, but running. Our education system, even at the highest levels, is littered with the hardcore socialist worldview. I understand how we end up there, but it's no less disgusting.

 

[bam15]

None of those guys ever want to talk about the ultimate failure of systems that fail to account for the humans involved in making them work. Complete socialism simply doesn't impound human needs, differences, ingenuity, challenge, etc, etc, etc. No single system is the best for everyone, but the one best for the less motivated and least capable would be socialism, all the time every time.

Not surprisingly, he skipped that part. I debated skipping class when he talked about structuralism and class struggle.

 

[bam15]

not just partaking, but running. Our education system, even at the highest levels, is littered with the hardcore socialist worldview. I understand how we end up there, but it's no less disgusting.

I've received my fair dosage of morons already.

 

[Lexvol]

None of those guys ever want to talk about the ultimate failure of systems that fail to account for the humans involved in making them work. Complete socialism simply doesn't impound human needs, differences, ingenuity, challenge, etc, etc, etc. No single system is the best for everyone, but the one best for the less motivated and least capable would be socialism, all the time every time.

Most of them are disillusioned about academia's role in the ruling class. That is the lure.

 

[bam15]

Most of them are disillusioned about academia's role in the ruling class. That is the lure.

This guy rambled on about class struggle then proceeded to advocate himself receiving five votes instead of one simply because he is a member of academia.

 

[sjt18]

There are over 20 population sized examples proving government is far more efficient at delivering health care than the market.

And of course they are adjusted for the constraints they place on private providers, the charges providers shift to private insurance because to recoup costs, the fact that those gov't agencies are not constrained by the same bureaucratic requirements, and do not have to render service to people known to be unable to pay whatever their share is?

Name one. Let's discuss it.

I'm skeptical of any voucher system as it comes from Friedmanites.

That is not me. It is just the best way I can think of to meet the two goals that most of us agree to: universal coverage and continued quality/quantity. The consumer is the only force that can ensure that value reaches equillibrium.

I will say, it sounds better than the current mess in the US, but it is not as simple - and has never been proven to work.

Where has it been tried?

I look around at over 20 countries with an NHS who provide better care at less money and think - solution. I'm a KISS guy.

Not really since that assertion is greatly debateable. If you are going to get sick, really sick, there is no place on earth better to be than the USA.

 

[utgibbs]

list the 20. Maybe just 10.

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica

37 = USA

I was trying to be nice. WHO service rankings. Admittedly, this is 2000 data. I think we've probably slipped down the table.

I know you will complain about the WHO (but you won't offer any comparative data). I know some of you will go anecdotal (my Mama says USA health care is the best!). But even if you want to go on some civilization fundamentals like infant mortality, life span, etc, you aren't going to break the Top 20. Efficiency shouldn't be a big consideration for health care, BUT, we won't crack the Top 20 in cost per capita either.

The data is the data. We have a very inefficient health system that doesn't serve the population at large. We pay more for less.

That's just the way it is.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, the data isn't just the data.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

No single philosopher / economist has it all right and no system can be the solution, especially as we continue to let our emotions pile on more and more purely frictional expense to our economy. We'll always have the bar moving in the wrong direction as far as governmental expense goes because politicians are afraid to say no.

Are you advocating pluralism????????? :jawdrop:


By the way, the curve early seems to indicate a Democrat in office gets the bar moving in the right direction....

 

[MG1968]

Saudi Arabia has a better healthcare system than the US??

Bull$hi7.

 

[utgibbs]

No, the data isn't just the data.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Might be the case.

However, like I said, we'll play it however you want.

Infant mortality
Life expectancy
Cost per unit of care

We certainly pay more for health care than anybody. We win that hands down. But the discussion was on efficiency.

And the data is the data on efficiency.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Saudi Arabia has a better healthcare system than the US??

Bull$hi7.

Of course it does. The data says so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

Might be the case.

However, like I said, we'll play it however you want.

Infant mortality
Life expectancy
Cost per unit of care

We certainly pay more for health care than anybody. We win that hands down. But the discussion was on efficiency.

And the data is the data on efficiency.

None of those three metrics has enough to do with quality of medical care. Those are lifestyle and personal decision metrics.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Saudi Arabia has a better healthcare system than the US??

Bull$hi7.

I'm sure you've researched the topic more than the WHO. "My Mama says...."

Take out Andorra too. Still doesn't matter. You've got to find 15 more spots.

You can wriggle, you can worm. If you want to believe the world is flat, it's your perogative. But the real world outside the back door ALWAYS wins.

 

[utgibbs]

None of those three metrics has enough to do with quality of medical care. Those are lifestyle and personal decision metrics.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So the US is just plain dumb, lazy, ineffectual, and chav? If we can't judge a medical service by the metrics of civilization then it's easy to see why I take you behind the woodshed in Fulmer debates.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It's Bobby Brown's pRerogative, but he wouldn't present something like WHO findings as anything but political gibberish.
Posted via VolNation Mobile