Post: #126

Universal health care is debatable, I get that.

But maybe we can find a way not to charge $700 for a dental x-ray or $500 for prescription glasses?

Post: #127

(03-05-2013 09:34 PM)Matt3B Wrote:  I have a fairly controversial view that people who are not contributing to these services should not get them no matter how inhumane the circumstances. Sick people with no money and ill babies shouldn't receive treatment because they haven't paid for it. It's harsh, but as a nation and indeed as a race, bottom dwellers need to be cut off I think. If they aren't contributing to society, why should society provide for them for nothing in return but more demand for consuming?

You don't go into a restaurant, not pay for anything and expect food to be given to you. Why should it be the same for the health service? Think of how much more money this country would have to improve the life of those contributing to it if the bottom feeders and bottom dwellers were cut off.

You wrote this a while ago but I think it still deserves a response. Irrespective of any moral objection, I don't see the logic in denying ill babies healthcare because they haven't 'contributed'. Do you mean ill babies from poor families who haven't been paying taxes or ill babies in general? If you just mean ill babies from poor families, how is it fair (as I believe the appeal to fairness is the premise of the argument) to punish them for their family's life choices/situation before they have even acquired proper sentience? You can't seriously argue that a baby shouldn't get healthcare because it's too 'lazy' to get a proper job and contribute or it acquired leukaemia through 'poor lifestyle choices'.

Post: #128

(04-05-2017 04:03 PM)godzilla Wrote:  Then there is this whole about drug prices, and how we basically subsidize the rest of the world. As you can imagine, there is a reason nothing gets done.

Yep. From a different thread:

(11-06-2016 12:25 PM)Mr. Accuride Wrote:  The reasons behind why the rest of the world gets to have socialized health care while the US has fuck all is because the US pretty much subsidizes the rest of the world. Health care systems around the world are subsidized by US taxpayers, US companies, and US medical device makers.

US companies do the research and development, operations, marketing and manufacturing that US investors and taxpayers pay for and then the rest of the world gets all the benefits at a lower cost per pill/treatment.

GSK, Merck, Pfizer, BMY-Squibb, Lilly, Abbott, Watson, Mylan, Gilead Sciences, etc. are all US based drug development companies. There are almost no equivalents in the rest of the world. For example, drug development is almost completely dead in Europe except for the Swiss (Roche), and the one or two remaining UK players. I think Canada tried with some lousy company a decade ago and it got soul crushed.

Same thing goes for medical devices: Johnson and Johnson, General Electric, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude, and so on. The rest of the world has....Siemens, Mitsubishi and Toshiba. That's fairly sad.

As it stands, the rest of the world only pays the variable costs of all the research, drugs, and new products invented in the US after being subsidized by US taxpayers, government, and investors, which allows them to free-ride over the US.

There are several studies out there that have concluded that the US subsidizes the rest of the world, as well as the market itself showing how simple it is, for example, to make a profit re-importing the same drug from Canada or other countries into the US.

Part of me wishes that we did implement fully socialized healthcare in the US, as I believe the result will be that either the quality of medical care will go down all across the board, or the medical costs of the rest of the world will escalate.

And that isn't even getting into how the US subsidizes much of the world for defense spending, which exacerbates the situation even more.

Post: #129

(04-05-2017 07:04 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  You can't seriously argue that a baby shouldn't get healthcare because it's too 'lazy' to get a proper job and contribute or it acquired leukaemia through 'poor lifestyle choices'.

If a baby smokes over a pack a day, then that's not fair for the rest of us to subsidize his habit. And if the baby has some skill such as welding or plumbing and doesn't have a job, then that's just a lazy baby.

Post: #130

I lived in Thailand for 4 years without any insurance because when I arrived here I was just getting on my feet.

As I'm not Thai, I didn't receive any health care without paying for it out of pocket at full price.

But luckily, it's relatively cheap here compared to the US, and the standard of care is high.

However, as in the US or anywhere else, you'd be prudent to use the medical system for diagnostic and consultative purposes, do the shit out of your homework, and then make treatment decisions in an intelligent fashion.

One thing that drives me crazy in Thailand is that the pharmacists, who can often have no formal training whatsoever, act as de facto doctors to thais and foreigners who don't know any better.

They give you antibiotics if you have so much as a slight tickle in your throat, and this region of the world (including Australia) has developed the gnarliest antibiotics resistance in the world so far as I know.

There are strains of chlamydia in Australia now that are untreatable by any antibiotics, including heavy duty shit like moxifloxicin.

But I digress.

Even though it's relatively cheap to get treated, it can still put a huge dent in your pocket, especially if you need to stay in the hospital or get a complicated procedure.

And if you can't pay you probably won't get treated, or you'll need to quickly borrow or somehow otherwise secure the money.

Initially I didn't really think twice about doing stupid shit like raw dogging tinder sluts, driving my motorbike without a helmet, and in a more general since things like eating poorly, not sleeping or managing stress, and diet.

But rest assured, reckless behavior catches up with you and then you find yourself contemplating the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

In this system I'm disincentivized from jeopardizing my health because it could cost me, or even kill me if I can't pay for a critical procedure.

Now you may say well Vincent what if some drunk a-hole crashes into you on his motorbike and you're in the ER through no fault of your own, with no ability to pay.

Isn't it just being moral and decent to save your life even if you can't pay right then?

Doesn't society have an obligation to take care of you?

First - no. There is no such thing as society.

The society is composed of people, and I have no right to demand that any of them - neither individually nor collectively - take care of me and my problems.

I may appeal to charities, as was done prior to the advent of the welfare state in the US.

But I cannot demand that others shoulder MY burdens, however unfortunate, unfair or tragic they may be.

In Thailand different hospitals handle this situation differently.

And I certainly wouldn't want to be in such a bind.

But - and here's why I reject universal health care completely - I have no right to make OTHERS pay for my misfortune.

I'm injured, maybe worse, yes.

Is it awful? Yes.

But does that mean that I have a right to put a gun to your head, via the government, and demand that you pay for my bad luck?

Free universal health care is a ridiculous, cynical term.

There's nothing free about it, and there's nothing universal about it.

It can't be free if somebody is paying for it.

There is nothing that you receive from the government without paying for it that somebody else didn't pay for.

The government doesn't have any money of its own, it merely holds the monopoly on force and uses that force or the threat of force, to compel people to finance things that they otherwise never would of their own free will.

So healthcare is only 'more' free to those who are paying relatively less because they earn relatively less.

It's the same age old Robin Hood bullshit of stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

As to it being universal...

You may argue that "Universal" implies that everybody receives the same thing.

Or you may say that it merely means that everybody receives the thing, but in different amounts.

And in fact, it cannot be the case that everybody receives healthcare in the same amounts because different ailments require different treatments, and so forth.

But if I pay $10k per year in taxes and Jose Ramirez in New Mexico pays $500/year in taxes, and can cover his whole family at my expense, is that really 'fair'?

And this is not a Mexican issue or a black issue or an immigrants issue, or whatever.

It's simply this:

Those who produce the wealth in an unjust society wind up subsidizing those who don't because they are FORCED to do so by the threat of fines, and imprisonment and other means of compulsion.

The reason why most people, including many of the bright minds on this forum, don't see the big deal about universal 'free' health care is because they don't fully realize the connection between their getting an x-ray for 'free' and the government pointing a gun at some small business owner's head and telling him to pony up the tax money that makes that x-ray free to another man.

Never mind that he has a payroll to meet, team members and their families counting on him and the business, his own family, his own problems.

The people who take the greatest risk in an attempt to create wealth and jobs - entrepreneurs - are the ones who are robbed most heavily.

How a man could be OK with another person shelling out THEIR hard earned money at gunpoint to take care of him - let alone demand it and expect - is not even in my reality.

It's bum think.

It's entitlement on another level.

Only a bum, a loser, a parasite could ever feel anything but disgust at accepting this blood money.

Now, I get it... the system is there, and you may as well use it.

That's the practical side.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you have to boycott it because then you'll be double fucked.

But it doesn't mean that you ought to vote for it or similar commie garbage, or otherwise support / enable this parasitism.

This gargantuan error of thought: that it's ok for somebody else to subsidize your life in any way, be it economical, spiritual, existential, whatever - is not the result our fucked up culture, but the CAUSE of it.

Another angle:

When has the government ever done anything more efficiently, more intelligently, or in any way 'better' than the private sector?

With a few notable exceptions (creation of the atom bomb for instance), almost never.

Post: #131

I have mixed feelings about this because I am a part of the system in many different ways. I am a patent attorney, and I have enabled patent trolls in the Biotech/Pharma sector-this has put food on the table and gas in the car, but I know it was a parasitic act on the system.

I am going into match after a transition year program to become a practicing Physician and am here to tell you if there was no money in it I would not be doing it, but I would still not let a person die because they could not pay-it is inconceivable. However, no matter how the US taxpayer feels they are going to pay one way or another. If someone never goes to the doctor and then has a catostrophic disease and the hospital treats them and they cannot pay, the hospital charges more for a bedside kit,aspirin, or a lipid panel.

I think that the first thing we need to do in the US is evaluate healthcare outcomes, preventive medicine, and reigning in drug prices and diagnostic tests. Then we need to get insurance companies out of the game -health , like prisons and the military ,should not be for profit. Understand that everyone will eventually need to have healthcare in the short term to lower costs long term.

If the government provides healthcare for US citizens the burden on small businesses is gone, and your healthcare should not be tied to employment anyway. I say this with the understanding that everyone here has government subsidized healthcare in one way or another-even if you have private healthcare through your employer they get a tax credit to give you that healthcare.

My real conundrum comes when I look at drug prices. I want new drugs, monoclonal antibodies and biosimilars are wonderful, but there has to be some price constraints. I know R and D takes money, and I want to incentivize innovation but drug prices here verses other western countries is out of control. These drugs are patented in the other countries just like here so the patents are not the issue , regulation is. On a related matter fuck the FDA and their ineffective over regulation -that is another conversation entirely so I will leave it at that.

Post: #132

I believe we should have universal health care for all US citizens. Everyone should pay, including co pays, and basic services should be covered. The insurance would be changed from an employer expense to an individual deduction so that it removes the employer from the equation and individuals won't have to change insurance if they change jobs. To my knowledge, this is similar to how it is done in Singapore and France.

No, I don't have the exact details, but I think removing the burden of providing insurance from employers and thus allowing individuals to keep the insurance as they see fit would be positive. I could be wrong, but I do think this should be the goal.

Post: #133

(04-07-2017 09:32 PM)CRR Wrote:  I believe we should have universal health care for all US citizens. Everyone should pay, including co pays, and basic services should be covered.

No, everyone should not pay.

UHC has proven inefficient.

It benefits one group at the expense of another, and it creates a double jeopardy situation where if I want private care (because it's almost guaranteed to be vastly superior to a public system), I still have to pay into the government system.

This parallels the government schools / private schools voucher scenario.

You have no right to compel me through force or threat of force to pay into such a system.

I reject your premise that everyone SHOULD pay.

I belong to the group "everyone" and who are you tell me what I should and should not pay for with my own hard earned money, mm?

Everyone should pay means "I think the government needs to force you - at gunpoint - to finance this bullcrap system because *I* think it's a good idea".

If you think that, put the shoe on the other foot and consider all of the things that you're made to pay for that you don't agree with and / or don't benefit from whatsoever.

That money could go back in YOUR pocket to help your family and your community.

But because some group of persons voted to extract those funds from you, you don't even have the choice in the matter.

Is that what you wish upon your fellow countrymen as well?

Post: #134

(04-08-2017 01:45 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:32 PM)CRR Wrote:  I believe we should have universal health care for all US citizens. Everyone should pay, including co pays, and basic services should be covered.

No, everyone should not pay.

UHC has proven inefficient.

It benefits one group at the expense of another, and it creates a double jeopardy situation where if I want private care (because it's almost guaranteed to be vastly superior to a public system), I still have to pay into the government system.

This parallels the government schools / private schools voucher scenario.

You have no right to compel me through force or threat of force to pay into such a system.

I reject your premise that everyone SHOULD pay.

I belong to the group "everyone" and who are you tell me what I should and should not pay for with my own hard earned money, mm?

Everyone should pay means "I think the government needs to force you - at gunpoint - to finance this bullcrap system because *I* think it's a good idea".

If you think that, put the shoe on the other foot and consider all of the things that you're made to pay for that you don't agree with and / or don't benefit from whatsoever.

That money could go back in YOUR pocket to help your family and your community.

But because some group of persons voted to extract those funds from you, you don't even have the choice in the matter.

Is that what you wish upon your fellow countrymen as well?

I'll clarify. IF we have universal health care, then everyone should pay. Meaning that it can't be let's tax one group to completely pay for another.

And yes, as someone who pays property/income/etc taxes yet doesn't have kids, I think it's fair to say like many people I pay taxes that I don't personally benefit from. I don't advocate abolishing public schools either.

I also think there is waste when people who don't have insurance or can't afford it end up in the emergency room and we all end paying one way or another.

Again, I think Singapore and France have UHC but they are based on everyone having insurance of some sort. I think even part of Trump's plan was to let insurance companies penalize people for letting their coverage lapse for a certain period.

Do you advocate getting rid of Medicaid and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act? You, I, everyone here already pays for a public system in the sense that per Wikipedia 64% of healthcare spending in the US is paid through the government.

I'd be fine with a completely private system, I just find it unlikely that hospitals would just turn people away. People, with or without money/insurance, are going to get sick and use our health care system, hence what I meant when 'everyone' should pay.

Post: #135

Quote:Do you advocate getting rid of Medicaid and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act?

Absolutely.

Quote:I'd be fine with a completely private system, I just find it unlikely that hospitals would just turn people away. People, with or without money/insurance, are going to get sick and use our health care system, hence what I meant when 'everyone' should pay.

Yes I agree it would be unlikely.

Under a truly private system hospitals would be incentivized, through competition, to offer deferred payment options to those who can't or are unable to pay at the point of sale.

Those hospitals who refuse care for the ill because they can't immediately afford it would have to face competition from other hospitals that allowed payment on credit, or via readily available charity appeals, etc.

Any debts would then be between the individual and the company, with no unearned burden upon strangers.

Quote:And yes, as someone who pays property/income/etc taxes yet doesn't have kids, I think it's fair to say like many people I pay taxes that I don't personally benefit from.

That being the case, why would you advocate for across the board adoption of a system which compounds the same exact tyranny?

The nature of government is to enlarge itself.

This is a matter of principle because there are virtually no practical concessions in which you give the state an inch and doesn't take a mile.

Quote:I don't advocate abolishing public schools either.

Public schools is a euphemism.

They are in fact government schools.

Translation of your statement above:

I'm fine with the government continuing to extort money at gunpoint, primarily from the top producers of wealth in this land, to finance a completely broken system that not only fails to educate our youth on any meaningful, practical level, but in fact indoctrinates them, de-balls them, and turns them into useful idiots who will perpetuate this insane system.

The stories I could tell about my experiences in a "good" public high school and (briefly) a "great" public college prep school...

Post: #136

I'm not going to disagree that there is a tremendous amount of wasteful spending, and the mentality that goes along with it. California is currently debating raising car/gasoline taxes to fix roads, yet is still spending money on the high speed train. The default mentality of just taxing 'the rich' to pay more has to end. As does the idea that we can just keep expanding Medicaid.

However, with your school example, presuming you would want to get rid of public schools, private schools would presumably just pick and choose their students, leaving the 'bad' students to do, what exactly? Likewise I'm not going to argue against completely revamping our public school system, I'm just not sure privatization would be the right way to go.

I don't think of it as 'tyranny', rather that there are certain fees to pay to live in a modern society, which includes a good public education system. What constitutes a good education system is something beyond my knowledge, but I think it should be there in one form or another.

Anyway, I completely understand the opposition to taxes. In addition to my day job, I launched two ventures, one of which is doing great this year, the other well, I hope to break even after incurring slight losses last year. I do certainly hate getting a quarterly tax bill then reading about wasteful spending. Or listening to Bernie Sanders supporters talking about 'free' health care and tuition. Or reading about the attorney in KY who was just convicted of massive SSD fraud. Perhaps it's my age (42), and I've just become too cynical (or tired) that the system can be completely changed, and that we have to work best with what we've got.

Post: #137

Welfare is a fact of life. White-run Christian nations are not apt to let people starve or bleed in the streets if it can be reasonably avoided. That should be seen as a good thing, even if it creates some problems.

But we absolutely need to stop protecting the improvident not only from poverty but from shame. We are so weak in the West, so incapable of engaging in tough love that we refuse even to suffer the improvident the burden of degradation, and without even that minor consequence there is little motivation for the improvident to better their lot.

Public education is not unreasonable as long as it's the lowest common denominator with zero fucks given as and where arrogant and disdainful students choose to fail. It could be run for pennies on the dollar, leaving the tax savings of other parents to fund private institutions befitting their economic capacity.

Likewise public health should be a bare-bones affair with zero comfort. It should be a choice of last resort. An option barely better than dying on the street. Again, the tax savings would allow people of even limited means to purchase private health care.

Having previously worked in and around the public health care sector I tell you it would take weeks for me to catalogue the grotesque abuses of taxpayer money that occur within, both on the part of the staff AND the patients.

We are productive enough to make sure nobody grows up illiterate or dies on the streets from preventable causes, no matter their circumstances, but they should not be entitled to the same levels of comfort and dignity that the provident have access to.

Post: #138

I have worked in a country with universal health care and I've worked in places that don't have it. From a health care worker's perspective, there are pros and cons. With socialized care in a wealthy, population controlled nation, the average person's care is probably better than it is in a private system. In a private system, the best possible care is available to those who can afford it which in my mind isn't a bad thing. The real problem with socialized care is that in a diverse country with a large population, with weak borders, and millions on welfare its completely unsustainable - especially since the US is also expected to subsidize the pharma and biotech R&D costs for the entire world. You will see that in Canada, Sweden, Germany, the public healthcare systems will fail as exponentially more low skill, welfare-dependent immigrants are imported.

Post: #139

(04-08-2017 04:19 AM)CRR Wrote:  I'm not going to disagree that there is a tremendous amount of wasteful spending, and the mentality that goes along with it.

Government cannot and does not spend in any other fashion but wastefully.

That's for the simple reason that the money isn't theirs.

A government bureaucrat has no incentive to treat your tax dollars with the same care of a business owner with a family to feed and a payroll to meet.

Quite the opposite.

Because the nature of government is to enlarge itself, the goal of bureaucrats is to expand the bureaucracy, ensure they've a cozy tax payer funded job for life (with a salary and benefits far greater than the free market would likely support).

Even a conscientious bureaucrat eventually becomes numb to any sense of duty or prudence in the handling of other peoples' earnings.

This, by the way, rests on the assumption that the available options to spend money once it's been appropriated (again, at gunpoint) are desirable to begin with.

And desirable to whom?

The beneficiaries (who are promised such goodies in exchange for votes), the financiers, the government agencies who must justify their existence...?

Quote:California is currently debating raising car/gasoline taxes to fix roads, yet is still spending money on the high speed train. The default mentality of just taxing 'the rich' to pay more has to end. As does the idea that we can just keep expanding Medicaid.

California has gone completely insane.

It's so expensive to live there, taxes alone.

Quote:However, with your school example, presuming you would want to get rid of public schools, private schools would presumably just pick and choose their students, leaving the 'bad' students to do, what exactly?

Think about it, they're private schools...

So their goal is to make a profit right?

If there's an 'elite' school with rigorous entrance requirements that rejects the shitty students, there will be a school with less rigorous requirements that will accept them.

There are also trade schools, and apprenticeships, and any one of a million ways to learn something useful and earn a good living without going through formal schooling.

Many of the great minds of our time were self taught and self made.

Arguably, had some of these men gone to school - government school especially - it would have squelched whatever independent spirit they had.

But that's romantic speculation on my part.

The point is, we're not doing the dregs of society any favors via the government school system.

And that is no speculation but comes from direct experience in the fine government school systems of Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Florida.

Between the 3, by the way, Kentucky's school system was by far the most rigorous.

Quote:Likewise I'm not going to argue against completely revamping our public school system, I'm just not sure privatization would be the right way to go.

Are you encouraged in any way by the state of the government school system?

Have education levels and standards improved or declined over time the more the government has been involved?

Has the government proven itself excellent in teaching the youth valuable, marketable skills or do they teach them to pass tests of increasingly reduced difficulty?

The government had its run, failed miserably as it does at practically everything because it's its nature, and needs to removed from education entirely and permanently.

To say nothing of what it bodes for a country when you leave millions of impressionable young minds in the hands of the state to be "educated".

Quote:I don't think of it as 'tyranny', rather that there are certain fees to pay to live in a modern society, which includes a good public education system.

Nobody will dispute that there are costs associated with living in civilization.

The question is, how are those costs paid for, by whom, and to whose benefit / detriment?

I'm saying that it's wholly unnecessary to continue to waste money on government education when private schools will do the job better.

Those who can't afford a private school can appeal to a charity, as has always been done in the past.

And as another poster pointed out, the USA is the most charitable country on earth.

Further, if government schools are abolished, private schools will have to compete which will drive the price of education down and the quality up.

Quote:What constitutes a good education system is something beyond my knowledge, but I think it should be there in one form or another.

'Good' is relative to the goals of the student and institution.

If you think it should exist you're free to open your own school.

But I don't accept that because you or anybody else thinks that a 'good' education system should exist - which, by your own admission you claim ignorance of what it might look like - that I should be made to pay for it.

I have my own kids, and my own family, and we should be able to spend our money (which as you know is really hard to come by) to further *our* goals and *our* futures, not a stranger's.

Quote:Anyway, I completely understand the opposition to taxes. In addition to my day job, I launched two ventures, one of which is doing great this year, the other well, I hope to break even after incurring slight losses last year. I do certainly hate getting a quarterly tax bill then reading about wasteful spending. Or listening to Bernie Sanders supporters talking about 'free' health care and tuition. Or reading about the attorney in KY who was just convicted of massive SSD fraud. Perhaps it's my age (42), and I've just become too cynical (or tired) that the system can be completely changed, and that we have to work best with what we've got.

To me it sounds like you're just a decent, hard-working American.

And like the great majority of people who 'benefitted' from government education, Keynesian economics were shoved down our throats.

Is there any government school out there that teaches Austrian economics, patriarchal values, ethics of self-reliance, masculinity, nationalism, etc.?

Do they teach students that communism killed more people than Nazism (which was in fact Socialism, itself)?

This is the same education system that's gnawing away at the fabric of everything great about America, wiping it out of the minds of entire generations.

The average American has a fatal misunderstanding of economic forces, the nature of the state, and the mechanics of freedom.

Consequently, it's easy to simultaneously resent the system that screws you while adamantly supporting it as an imperfect but for some vague reason, necessary thing.

(04-08-2017 04:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Welfare is a fact of life. White-run Christian nations are not apt to let people starve or bleed in the streets if it can be reasonably avoided. That should be seen as a good thing, even if it creates some problems.

Disagree.

It's a slippery slope as has been demonstrated time and time again by every socialist country the world over.

If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.

Quote:But we absolutely need to stop protecting the improvident not only from poverty but from shame. We are so weak in the West, so incapable of engaging in tough love that we refuse even to suffer the improvident the burden of degradation, and without even that minor consequence there is little motivation for the improvident to better their lot.

Couldn't agree more on this point.

It's uplifting to see young Thai boys and girls here in Thailand working the shittiest shitty jobs like McDonalds and gas station attendant with big smiles on their faces.

I see no shame on their faces.

Perhaps because the culture values the sanctity of labor.

I was thinking about this today:

Even though the Thai school system teaches kids absolutely fuck all, even through college, there's some sort of social 'glue' that keeps the country going, keeps people working and smiling and striving.

Quote:Public education is not unreasonable as long as it's the lowest common denominator with zero fucks given as and where arrogant and disdainful students choose to fail. It could be run for pennies on the dollar, leaving the tax savings of other parents to fund private institutions befitting their economic capacity.

I don't see any reason this couldn't be done privately more cheaply, more effectively, more efficiently and with greater benefit to absolutely all parties involved.

Education is not some universal right.

Rather than watering it down by putting it in the hands of the government and making shitty education available to all, why don't we privatize it and make great education available for most?

And it won't require you being robbed, or robbing your neighbor via government force in the process.

Quote:Likewise public health should be a bare-bones affair with zero comfort. It should be a choice of last resort. An option barely better than dying on the street. Again, the tax savings would allow people of even limited means to purchase private health care.

Same as above.

I don't see any reason why health care can't be completely privatized to the aggregate benefit of all involved, even the poor.

Quote:Having previously worked in and around the public health care sector I tell you it would take weeks for me to catalogue the grotesque abuses of taxpayer money that occur within, both on the part of the staff AND the patients.

Knowing that, and knowing the nature of government and government bodies of all kinds to grow like cancers, doesn't it concern you that if you get the government involved "a little" that over time it will get involved a lot more than a little?

And in fact that's one of the insidious tactics of subversion used by the state, the ol' frog in boiling water.

A little tax here, a little tax there, next thing you know...

Quote:We are productive enough to make sure nobody grows up illiterate or dies on the streets from preventable causes, no matter their circumstances, but they should not be entitled to the same levels of comfort and dignity that the provident have access to.

Nobody wants those things to happen but education is not a right and nor is health care.

The most important thing to note is that at no time in history has the lot of the *average man* been more improved than in times of relatively free market trade and freedom from government intervention.

It's precisely when the state enters in, trumpeting its concern for the poor, indigent and otherwise disenfranchised, that those very groups wind up suffering the most.

That's the whole uncanny fucked up thing about it and politicians are laughing themselves to sleep that people could be so gullible.

I still believe in America though, especially the fly over country.

Those simple country folk have on thing that the liberal moron city slickers don't: common sense.

You can't quite so easily pull the wool over their eyes.

It certainly will be an interesting next 50 years...

Post: #140

VV, your premise exists successfully in a vacuum only. If we lived in homogeneous societies that still held to traditional Christian values then it could possibly work. Possibly. Maybe.

Let me break down for you what would occur under your thoeology when the rubber hits the road.

For a start, everyone who used to be on welfare and who no longer has any sort of income (and is also unemployable by modern standards) is going to have to choose between crime and starvation. They will choose crime, but not by themselves. They will move like locusts and nothing short of genocide will stop them. After all, they have no other choice.

Meanwhile the existing corporate structures will seize total power over the common man. They have killswitch control at this point over all major industry and all importation both of finished good and raw materials. They also have the financial resources to utterly destroy any startups stupid enough to make a run at competing with them. They would quickly organise themselves into an all powerful oligarchy, and since they were operating under voluntary contracts the libertarians couldn't say boo about it.

This would lead to another sort of genocide. If your health care costs outweighed your usefulness to your corporate overlords then you would be left to die. End of story. "We refuse you coverage". If you doubt this then you've never dealt with middle management in a corporation.

This would leave quite a hefty purse capable of bribing what skeleton of a government the libertarians had left in place, or at least bribing enough of that government that the "good guys" were marginalised.

Libertarianism is a system of a bygone era. We could discuss it seriously as such, the way we might discuss the best sail configuration a ship should possess for transporting exports of tobacco back to Europe. It can exist only in a high trust society. Nobody any longer has a high trust society, except perhaps Japan, and as such libertarianism will inevitably be shelved until a catastrophe of some sort dramatically shrinks our societal circles.

Post: #141

As it relates to public schools remember that your property taxes go to fund schools near your property. My sister lives in an expensive part of Maryland and the "public" school in her neighborhood rivals the private ($27,000 a semester) schools in the District of Columbia in terms of competitive college acceptance, academics, extracurricular activities and STEM focus. When you live in an expensive neighborhood your property taxes get put into police that treat you like family, schools that actually educate you, good clean streets and excellent public facilities. So when we speak of public schools let's not act as if all public schools are equal in any regard. The school my sister's kids go to is "public", but to go there you pay a shitton for your house and in property taxes.

Post: #142

(04-08-2017 09:54 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  As it relates to public schools remember that your property taxes go to fund schools near your property. My sister lives in an expensive part of Maryland and the "public" school in her neighborhood rivals the private ($27,000 a semester) schools in the District of Columbia in terms of competitive college acceptance, academics, extracurricular activities and STEM focus. When you live in an expensive neighborhood your property taxes get put into police that treat you like family, schools that actually educate you, good clean streets and excellent public facilities. So when we speak of public schools let's not act as if all public schools are equal in any regard. The school my sister's kids go to is "public", but to go there you pay a shitton for your house and in property taxes.

I think it's worth noting in this discussion that the primary reason you pay a shit ton in property taxes for a good school is to get away from mostly blacks and other non-asian minorities (and to some degree poor whites). There's not a lot of evidence that spending more on teachers, equipment, etc. really makes a difference in educational outcomes, what makes the difference in the character of the student body. (Which makes sense, right? The schools that produced the physicists that worked on the Manhattan projects weren't spending anywhere near as much as we spend today, even adjusted for inflation.) If you were to swap out the kids from your sister's school district with the kids from say, inner-city New York, you could spend the same amount of money and get absolutely shit results.

In the same way, the character of a population receiving health care determines the kind of outcomes you're going to get. Americans are tremendously unhealthy people, and the poor who have trouble paying for health care are the unhealthiest of all. Any kind of system to give health care to all of them at the standards we're used to would be crushed (literally, given Americans' weight). There's just not enough money in the world.

Post: #143

(04-08-2017 09:15 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  VV, your premise exists successfully in a vacuum only. If we lived in homogeneous societies that still held to traditional Christian values then it could possibly work. Possibly. Maybe.

In thinking about your reply and formulating my own I stumbled upon a fascinating page:

https://www.cato.org/blog/was-there-libe...golden-age

I wanted to know whether there was any historical precedent of anything approximating what you might call a "libertarian golden age", which would be primarily characterized by the near absence of government intervention from the affairs of the citizens.

The answer is of course complex and multifaceted because you have to ask:

Libertarian golden age for WHOM?

White men? Slaves? Women?

But at least in the sense that the state was relatively small and uninvolved in the common man's affairs, you could certainly argue that it was a golden age.

And in fact, it was during this period (roughly the 1800s) that hitherto unimaginable, quantum leaps of progress were made in the economic growth of the country and consequently, the entire world.

But I must say I'm confused by your reply because you had earlier stated that it's in the nature of societies with Cristian values to take care of their improvident (manifested by welfare).

Yet here you're saying that the case for a small government and relatively free market is stronger in a homogenous Cristian society.

I would argue the opposite, that it would be easier to maintain the charade of welfare in a small, homogenous society with a 'help the poor' ethos.

Societies don't scale linearly.

What may work for Switzerland or Norway - and that their socialist policies work to begin with is contentious - applied to a huge, diverse country like the US would not bring the same results.

Quote:Let me break down for you what would occur under your thoeology when the rubber hits the road.

This is where the Russian language offers a more elegant reply over English:

vy naprasna yego teologiy rugayte

Roughly: "it's a shame you call it 'theology'".

Because in fact whenever the principles of laissez-faire economics and government non-intervention have been applied even marginally, the positive *practical* consequences have been enormous.

And conversely, the stronger the role that the state takes in economic matters (Federal reserve anyone?), and the more it sticks its beak into the lives of the populace, the less free people become.

Quote:For a start, everyone who used to be on welfare and who no longer has any sort of income (and is also unemployable by modern standards) is going to have to choose between crime and starvation.

Are you sure those are the only choices?

What about that most American of things: working.

Have your parents ever cut you off after supporting you, or have you ever lost a job or a scholarship?

Did you go rob a convenience store or did you find a way to make ends meet?

The welfare state BREEDS the bum mindset and encourages parasitism and criminality.

The housing projects are government subsidized housing mind you.

There are countless able-bodied bums in the Western world who would go to work if only the federal teat were removed.

Quote:They will choose crime, but not by themselves. They will move like locusts and nothing short of genocide will stop them. After all, they have no other choice.

You're *assuming* that's what would happen.

I take a more optimistic view that the average man, even in the slums, is a good man.

There are criminals, and they're better represented in poor communities, but if you stop subsidizing their loafer lifestyles and FORCE them to work then I do believe the majority of them would do what it takes.

It's simple conditioning.

Have you ever cut a girl a little slack and then she got used to it?

Then that poor behavior became the new standard.

You get what you're willing to put up with.

So it is in this case.

Quote:Meanwhile the existing corporate structures will seize total power over the common man. They have killswitch control at this point over all major industry and all importation both of finished good and raw materials. They also have the financial resources to utterly destroy any startups stupid enough to make a run at competing with them. They would quickly organise themselves into an all powerful oligarchy, and since they were operating under voluntary contracts the libertarians couldn't say boo about it.

Ok now you're getting into conspiracy theories.

How did you make the connection between removing welfare, the suddenly poorer poor running amok, and big corporations organizing into Bladerunneresque mega powers?

If your theory was true then entrepreneurship wouldn't be able to exist at all right now.

Small business owners account for the vast majority of the jobs in the US.

Actually, the statistics on small businesses in the USA are fascinating and enlightening.

You realize that they are the backbone of this country.

You might not be able to compete with Walmart but more and more people are willing to pay more for things across different dimensions.

Just today I read a cool article on Etsy.com.

There are sellers on there making a million a year with their stores by producing interesting artisanal items.

You have to wait longer to get them, you have to pay more, but you're willing to do it because fuck a Walmart table from China.

Quote:This would lead to another sort of genocide. If your health care costs outweighed your usefulness to your corporate overlords then you would be left to die. End of story. "We refuse you coverage". If you doubt this then you've never dealt with middle management in a corporation.

Can you offer an example of when and where that kind of thing has happened outside of the scenarios in which the government was heavily involved in an industry?

Again, in a relatively free market there would be competition among hospitals for customers / patients.

The hospital that doesn't treat patients who can't pay on the spot will lose business to the hospital that does.

Eventually I wager most hospitals would offer some sort of credit/financing or pay later system, as has happened in many industries.

Quote:This would leave quite a hefty purse capable of bribing what skeleton of a government the libertarians had left in place, or at least bribing enough of that government that the "good guys" were marginalised.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

Quote:Libertarianism is a system of a bygone era.

Libertarianism isn't a system that depends on any particular era or population.

It's simply a set of economic and political guidelines that follow from first principles about human nature, the nature of economic growth, the nature of government, and the nature of freedom.

Most any country in the world would benefit from less government intervention, deregulation, and respect for individual rights.

I echo what I said before, that under no system has the lot of the average man been better than it has been under even marginal implementations of capitalism.

Quote:We could discuss it seriously as such, the way we might discuss the best sail configuration a ship should possess for transporting exports of tobacco back to Europe. It can exist only in a high trust society.

You think the government is more trustworthy than the individuals whom you deal with and engage in commerce with in your community?

Who has more to lose by being seen as distrustful by you: the government store where you wait in line for your bread attended to by a bored babushka or the corner store run by a mom & pop duo who live and die by their reputation and quality of goods?

Trust is built when people are forced to deal directly with one another.

As soon as a 3rd party enters in, it brings its own interests to the table PLUS the monopoly on force.

Whose interests are likely to triumph in this scenario?

I'd put my money on the dude with the guns.

Quote:Nobody any longer has a high trust society, except perhaps Japan, and as such libertarianism will inevitably be shelved until a catastrophe of some sort dramatically shrinks our societal circles.

You can see practical examples of libertarian ideas in action in places like southeast asia.

There's a ton of freedom to start businesses, low or no corporate taxes, solid banking, a real feeling of freedom on the street.

Visiting the USA is literally visiting a police state, the fucking homeland security jerkoffs alone are enough to make you want to turn right back around.

Every headache I can think of in my life that wasn't purely the result of my own stupid decisions can be attributed to the state.

Post: #144

Man, I don't want to be "that guy", but do you think you could use paragraphs?

That really hurts to read, which is a shame because I think you might be making some interesting points.

Post: #145

(04-08-2017 10:12 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 09:54 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  As it relates to public schools remember that your property taxes go to fund schools near your property. My sister lives in an expensive part of Maryland and the "public" school in her neighborhood rivals the private ($27,000 a semester) schools in the District of Columbia in terms of competitive college acceptance, academics, extracurricular activities and STEM focus. When you live in an expensive neighborhood your property taxes get put into police that treat you like family, schools that actually educate you, good clean streets and excellent public facilities. So when we speak of public schools let's not act as if all public schools are equal in any regard. The school my sister's kids go to is "public", but to go there you pay a shitton for your house and in property taxes.

I think it's worth noting in this discussion that the primary reason you pay a shit ton in property taxes for a good school is to get away from mostly blacks and other non-asian minorities (and to some degree poor whites). There's not a lot of evidence that spending more on teachers, equipment, etc. really makes a difference in educational outcomes, what makes the difference in the character of the student body. (Which makes sense, right? The schools that produced the physicists that worked on the Manhattan projects weren't spending anywhere near as much as we spend today, even adjusted for inflation.) If you were to swap out the kids from your sister's school district with the kids from say, inner-city New York, you could spend the same amount of money and get absolutely shit results.

In the same way, the character of a population receiving health care determines the kind of outcomes you're going to get. Americans are tremendously unhealthy people, and the poor who have trouble paying for health care are the unhealthiest of all. Any kind of system to give health care to all of them at the standards we're used to would be crushed (literally, given Americans' weight). There's just not enough money in the world.

As someone who was a teacher once at the lower grades, in my humble opinion class size makes a huge difference for average to above-average kids. For high-g, extremely intelligent students (the ones that go on to be theoretical physicists, it doesn't matter as much) or those that are highly motivated (either internally or by external stimulus - tiger parents/culture).

I taught for some time at a very white public school district in the NE (the demographics are parents of lots of medical staff or corp middle management). Average/above-average white kids definitely benefit from more attention so I have to disagree that spending on teachers doesn't matter - not saying teachers should be paid more but more teachers should be hired to cut class sizes down. I agree that there is way too much wasteful spending on equipment.

Post: #146

I'm getting the typical libertarian static here that immediately equates my derision of libertarianism with full support for a total collectivist regime, which my previous post made clear was not the case.

You have no basis to suggest that literally millions upon millions of low IQ useless eaters who have no place in an increasingly automated society will simply "find a job". Where? For whom? How many of them do you think are looking for jobs already? Plenty, I assure you. You think their prospects will get better when their competition is compounded by an order of magnitude? We are already facing a crisis of extreme labour oversupply due largely to automation. Low skilled jobs barely pay a subsistence wage. For many people if they lost just 25% of their shifts they would end up on the street.

I live in a relatively homogeneous (though no longer Christian) part of the world. Even here, where crime is relatively low but family ties are weak, if welfare was cut off there would be an immediate crisis that would have no means of abatement, even if taxes were reduced the meagre 10 percent or even 20 percent that goes to keep those people fed and more importantly prevents them from rioting.

But America? Hell, it would be a war zone. Maybe you forget that large parts of Los Angeles turned into lawless no-mans-lands over the mere verdict on a court case. Certain demographics destroy urban areas with predictability when one of their own who they care not a jot for gets shot and killed for perfectly good reasons by the police. Turn off the welfare spigot to every ghetto in America and you seriously think those people are just going to put up "work wanted" signs? Worse yet, when there's suddenly a glut of poor, dumb white guys one the poor, dumb work market, what do you think is going to happen to race relations when the pitiful levels of engagement poor, dumb blacks and latinos have in said workforce dries up overnight? And if your answer is "employers will be blind to race" then don't even bother.

VV, my criticism of many libertarian's understanding of the world is in a sense praise for the kind of people they are. Wonderful, but naive. You imagine the world to be populated with people like you with perhaps a few fringe outliers at the bad end of the spectrum. You're a modest person in that regard, because although you are honourable and smart you contend that you are not special. You are not an idiot or a thug and because you are also modest you assume that most other people are not idiots or thugs either.

The cold reality of the world is that you are wrong. Libertarianism is over. Automation of low skilled jobs killed it. It was dead the moment the first tractor rolled onto a farm. It's a beautiful dream but its time is past. Welfare is here to stay, although any of us would be right to question how it's rolled out and at what expense.

Post: #147

(04-08-2017 09:55 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  You have no basis to suggest that literally millions upon millions of low IQ useless eaters who have no place in an increasingly automated society will simply "find a job". Where? For whom?

Welfare is here to stay, although any of us would be right to question how it's rolled out and at what expense.

I understand that taking away longstanding handouts from the Republican and Democratic parties will certainly lead to riots and the destruction of society. We've made our welfare beds and now we have to lie in them.

But why keep increasing the amounts of things provided to indigents via the theft of my personal wealth? Why now provide them with hospital care? So that the moochers can live even longer and cost me even more while they sit around an extra 20 years taking up space?

Let them die off at least.

Post: #148

^Agreed. Universal health care makes little sense in America and other nations wracked by internal strife where government programs are politically weaponised as an assumption.

Until the events in Syria recently I might have said "maybe once things are re-ordered" but now it seems that was a laughable hope at best.

Americans should hone their focus on building social and financial life-rafts to survive what's coming but you're correct that there's not an ounce of goodwill left to provide the feds with a solitary mandate or a penny more than they have already taken.

You will know that a basic single payer option is reasonable when see your people as one nation under God rather than a gathering of hostile tribes competing for resources.

Post: #149

This is fun.

(04-08-2017 09:55 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  You have no basis to suggest that literally millions upon millions of low IQ useless eaters who have no place in an increasingly automated society will simply "find a job". Where? For whom?

Man, there are countless jobs available for these able-bodied bums.

Construction, hotels, fast food, restaurants, sanitation, etc.

Quote:How many of them do you think are looking for jobs already? Plenty, I assure you.

Maybe some are looking in earnest, but what is the incentive of the majority of these moochers to really wean themselves off "free" money and get a job where they bust their ass for minimum wage?

Quote:You think their prospects will get better when their competition is compounded by an order of magnitude? We are already facing a crisis of extreme labour oversupply due largely to automation. Low skilled jobs barely pay a subsistence wage. For many people if they lost just 25% of their shifts they would end up on the street.

That would be unfortunate.

But "don't let the poor starve" - the same poor that this welfare system has largely been responsible for creating / perpetuation - is not an argument against halting the forcible seizure of money from innocents who have not caused this poverty, and have no responsibility to extract these perfect strangers from their bad situations.

Quote:I live in a relatively homogeneous (though no longer Christian) part of the world. Even here, where crime is relatively low but family ties are weak, if welfare was cut off there would be an immediate crisis that would have no means of abatement, even if taxes were reduced the meagre 10 percent or even 20 percent that goes to keep those people fed and more importantly prevents them from rioting.

So keep stealing from people who DO work to give it to people who DON'T work to prevent the people who DON'T work from rioting because they no longer get to reach into the pockets of the people who DO work?

What kind of sense does that make?

You don't fight an evil by adopting it and making it policy.

You remove it and deal with the fallout.

Quote:But America? Hell, it would be a war zone. Maybe you forget that large parts of Los Angeles turned into lawless no-mans-lands over the mere verdict on a court case. Certain demographics destroy urban areas with predictability when one of their own who they care not a jot for gets shot and killed for perfectly good reasons by the police. Turn off the welfare spigot to every ghetto in America and you seriously think those people are just going to put up "work wanted" signs? Worse yet, when there's suddenly a glut of poor, dumb white guys one the poor, dumb work market, what do you think is going to happen to race relations when the pitiful levels of engagement poor, dumb blacks and latinos have in said workforce dries up overnight? And if your answer is "employers will be blind to race" then don't even bother.

Let's say that were to actually happen.

I say, let it happen.

If the poor have their welfare yanked and they decide to riot, let the police and military do their jobs in reply.

Your proposal is akin to feeding a tiger so that it doesn't get hungry and bite you.

It's going to cost a fortune to keep feeding the giant, and it's going to bite your ass anyway.

There's also a side issue here that if the average American were armed with a personal firearm, hoodlums would think twice before rioting in a neighborhood.

You get what you put up with.

They wanna riot? Let them go out and break the law and face the consequences just like anybody else.

Take away welfare, squash the rioters with ruthless military and police force, and move on with reclaiming the great land that was once a beacon of freedom for the entire world to look up to.

Quote:VV, my criticism of many libertarian's understanding of the world is in a sense praise for the kind of people they are. Wonderful, but naive. You imagine the world to be populated with people like you with perhaps a few fringe outliers at the bad end of the spectrum. You're a modest person in that regard, because although you are honourable and smart you contend that you are not special. You are not an idiot or a thug and because you are also modest you assume that most other people are not idiots or thugs either.

I have no illusions about the fucked up nature of people, islam, women or any of it.

But I have lived in America my whole life, in different areas and in all sort of socio economic scenarios.

I repeat my earlier conviction that the average American, even in the ghettos, just wants to earn his keep and feed his family.

But he has no incentive to do so because he's getting money that rewards him for being a layabout, and incentivizes him to work the system.

If a fucked up system is there, people will use it.

THAT is the true nature of people.

But if you remove that system they will change their tune or resort to behavior which will put them in contact with the law.

If it's the latter, so be it, but to not do the right thing for fear that a group will resent it and lose their shit is also a decision and a weak one at that.

You call me naive but I've lived among Americans of all stripes my whole life. Where is your comparable experience?

In fact, I see great naïveté in your approach of concessions and appeasement, and history would support me there.

Concessions and appeasement to any group - how does that work historically?

Quote:The cold reality of the world is that you are wrong. Libertarianism is over. Automation of low skilled jobs killed it. It was dead the moment the first tractor rolled onto a farm. It's a beautiful dream but its time is past. Welfare is here to stay, although any of us would be right to question how it's rolled out and at what expense.

I see absolutely no connection between the way in which work is done - whether it's automated or manually accomplished - and the need to keep government small and taxes miniscule.

Your argument that welfare is here to stay simply because we have so much of it doesn't make sense.

Trump's election proves that there's a shifting tide in the West.

People are getting sick of the bullcrap from the left, both on the economic and social fronts.

You can accept that welfare is here to stay but I'm not going to.

That's why I was laughing when people were all up in arms about the Panama papers.

You punish and tax the bejesus out of businesses and entrepreneurs.

You punish them for creating jobs and capital and then you wonder why they seek to take their assets off shore?

Post: #150

(04-09-2017 01:35 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  If the poor have their welfare yanked and they decide to riot, let the police and military do their jobs in reply.


...

Take away welfare, squash the rioters with ruthless military and police force, and move on with reclaiming the great land that was once a beacon of freedom for the entire world to look up to.

The police and military are part of government, funded by the taxpayer. Why should wealthier members of the community part with their hard-earned cash to subsidise your security? They could easily just hire their own security guards and wait it out in their gated compounds. Private security, being sourced from the private sector unlike clumsy state-owned military/policy forces, would do a far better job.
Taking it further, why should the government protect your property rights at all? If you have worked hard enough, you ought to have enough money to pay for militias to do the job for you. After all, there is no society, only individuals, and they should look after their own interests instead of depending on a nanny state to protect them.