Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
That or a good reason to start a second revolution.

You know, no one takes this threat seriously anymore. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

At least Daniel Shays went all the way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Was it a threat? Did you miss the part about the Godfather music right below it? Who put a corn cob up your ass this morning?

Oh Frazz can dish out the troll, but can't take it.



In all seriousness Frazz, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts (and others) about the potential limitations the Supreme Court put on the Commerce Clause?

olympia wrote:Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

He actually gift wrapped it for opponents of the bill while preserving the image of the SCOTUS and shielding himself from future accusations of partisanship. It's a giant you to Obama and most people don't even realize it yet. It's hilarious. Obamacare supporters are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate. Also, since it is a tax, it would only take 51 votes (not 60) in the Senate to strike down (that is to say, there are plenty of ways to crack this nut). Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The ruling also sets a hard limit on the commerce clause for the first time ever. The Medicare ruling allows states to challenge unfunded federal mandates. The Medicaid ruling prevents Congress from withholding healthcare funding from states that don't comply. These are major victories for states' rights.

And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

Ailaros wrote:That's spending per capita, not spending per illness. Americans overconsume healthcare. Of course we're going to have to pay more for it.

The only way to bring the price down is to decrease people's access to healthcare (like they do in all those other countries on that graph), or to create a maximum wage law for doctors.

Because your doctors are paid for investigations performed, it is often the case that Americans are given 2-3 times as many imaging procedures (x-rays, CT's, MRI's etc) for each investigation than you would be given for exactly the same condition here in the UK. I was told this while talking to one of the radiographers/clinical scientists at work.

Grey Templar wrote:
We can't centralize or socialize medicine as easily as they do because of our landmass.

Landmass isn't an issue, as Canada does just fine. You could argue that the real issue if population, but that's still not necessarily a good argument given that there's no particular reason that bureaucracy should scale up faster than the population it serves.

No, the real issue is that most European states are unitary governments, which means administrative regions derive their authority from the state itself. This means that bureaucratic procedure can be easily standardized, as the central authority doesn't have to deal with 50 separate sovereigns, each with their own unique regulations and procedures. This problem gets even worse when you get down to the municipal level as each state has to contend the political distinctions of all the various cities, towns, counties, and townships within its jurisdiction.

You could argue that Canada has a similar issue, but quite frankly that is a case where scale is important. 10 provinces and 3 territories is a much easier system to administrate than 50 states, which in part is why Canada's central government has tended to be stronger than that of the US.

Grey Templar wrote:
Think about what would happen if the EU was what provided medical coverage for everyone coming out of one pocket. It would be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

It would be, but only if the various constituent nations maintained their political autonomy (which they would).

There is merit to the idea that universal healthcare should be provided at the state level, lord knows they've gotten away with artificially low taxes for years. Though its likely that any regulation regarding the open borders* of states would have to be made at the federal level, at least eventually. Really that might not even be a bad means of providing an incentive for states to adopt universal healthcare: set the parameters for how "foreign" citizens must be treated if you adopt such coverage, and let them work from there (this also conveniently limits the types of universal healthcare that can be provided).

*eg: What must California cover if a person visiting from Texas gets sick? Or, for that matter, a person visiting from Japan?

Frazzled wrote: Take the best from it, the Swiss, German, etc. Take your time and do it right. Instead that created a bureaucratic monster worthy of Greek myth.

The German system isn't actually all that far off from the one which exists under the mandate (aside from enforcement), its simply that Germany has a long, long history of socialized medicine and so is more receptive to it.

Really, a better written form of mandated health insurance would work well in the US, its simply political will that stands in the way of such a thing existing. Unfortunately, "political will" is a big, amorphous hurdle.

agnosto wrote:...and the country is anything but broke, even after the earthquake and nuclear disaster.

I still don't think you should hold up a country that has had no appreciable growth in GDP over the last 20 years, while bringing debt to GDP up to 200% whilst rapidly de-peopleing itself should be held up as a good example.

azazel the cat wrote:Please explain to me how Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. have decreased access to healthcare?

So, you only have a certain amount of healthcare available, and it's not going to ever be able to cover the infinite demand for it. In the case of the US at the moment, what brings the amount of healthcare consumption more in line with what's available is the price of healthcare, although with insurance, it's far from a perfect system.

In other countries where things are fixed, the government decides who gets healthcare, and who doesn't, and of what quality (depending on the country). In this case, the government decreases healthcare consumption to the amount that's available.

azazel the cat wrote:But they're not on the brink of total collapse due to their health care, so please try not to create a straw man.

But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system. Health care may not be ruining Greece's economy, but really look at it - now that Greece is collapsing due to its state-run programs, are people getting more or less healthcare now? Greed allowed them to overconsume healthcare in the past at the cost of underconsuming it in the future. Greece has hit that tipping point, and, by the looks of it, they're only the first of many.

sebster wrote:Well, that's a really wild claim. The mandate is $600... and meanwhile you have sales taxes of around 10%. So no, it really, really isn't the most regressive tax hike at present, let alone in history.

I didn't say it was the biggest tax hike in history, I said it was the most regressive. Rich and poor alike have to pay sales taxes (while poor people get a break with things like much lower rates on food, and heavily subsidized fuel). In this case, the only people who are going to be subjected to the tax are people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place. The only people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place are poor people.

It's a tax that the rich are already avoiding, and that the middle class, if they're not already avoiding it, will be relatively easy to avoid. A tax that is only practically leveled on poor people and not the rich is regressive. End of.

sebster wrote: That $600 charge means if you do get sick you can go and get coverage.

Firstly, it's not limited to $600. If you're married, your obligation rises to $2000 per family or $600 per uninsured person, whichever is higher.

Secondly, this tax is to recoup the loss of emergency room visits by the uninsured. It does NOT insure the uninsured. If I pay the tax because insurance is still less affordable (which will be the case for me), I still don't get insurance. I'm still not covered. I don't get anything. The only difference is that the burden on the state is reduced if I go to the emergency room anyways.

youbedead wrote: If you don't have to pay for doctors visits you are far more likely to take preventive measures thereby reducing future costs dramatically and overall reducing the cost of healthcare.

But this isn't true. Preventative medicine doesn't save you money over the long term. Preventitive medicine isn't free. All those MRIs and CT scans and doctors visits that yield no benefit (because you weren't sick) cost money and resources. Lots of money goes in, and only once in a very while do you see real savings from individuals. It's exactly the same faulty reasoning that causes people to play the lottery. People see the relatively low up-front cost and see what the payout is on that very rare chance that it benefits you and gets suckered into playing. Just like how the lottery makes poor people poorer, so does a system like this make a whole country poorer.

Plus, think of it practically here. If preventative medicine saved money in the long-term over large populations, then insurance companies would REQUIRE you to engage in preventative care, because it would save the insurance company money. As it is, most insurance companies don't cover preventative care at all, or only minimally cover it. This is because it's a bad investment. You lose money over all. If insurance has taught us anything, it's that it's cheaper to let people get cancer and then pay to cure it, than it is to make everybody go in for mandatory cancer screenings. Indeed, the only places that even do things like this (free mammograms, for example), are places that aren't required to make a profit (like planned parenthood and catholic hospitals).

youbedead wrote: Can you show support for your claim that more people are denied healthcare in socialized medicine (This goes out to anyone, does anyone have actual numbers of those denied coverage in America, Britain, canada, etc,)

It feels like a half dozen times a year, British newspapers break a horror story about their NHS system. If you really want me to dreg up some, I could. But that's not the point, of course.

The point is economic. If you only have so much of a service that you can give out, and you increase the number of people who get a slice of that zero-sum pie, then it makes everyone else's pie slice smaller. It's one of the things that's hidden in the data presented here, actually.

In the UK, there is much more access to healthcare, but the healthcare that people who have access to it get is much poorer than in the US. Conversely, the healthcare that people gain access to in the US is much better, but many fewer people have access to it. This nuance is completely lost when you look at the average of an entire population (and since the US system as its currently "designed" doesn't have this as its prime focus, it's not surprising that it doesn't do the best at this). How would you tell the other way? Well, when the King of Jordan wants the best healthcare in the world, he goes to the Mayo clinic in the United States. The same is true for all of the rest of the worlds dictators and rich folk. If you can afford it, the United States will provide you with the highest quality healthcare in the world today.

So, the question here is if you'd rather have a system where everybody gets fixed up a little bit, or of some people get fixed up all the way. While I like the former in theory, when it gets practiced through socialism, I'd rather go for the latter. Socialized healthcare may look good now, but what happens in 20 years when the states that are supporting it are too bankrupt to be able to pay their doctors? Even were this not the case, we know empirically that over the long term decentralized systems produce more wealth for the poorest people. Equality isn't as important as quality.

Cadorius wrote:And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The victory is much, much less of a victory than it seems, and I also agree that the way the supreme court undermined it was worthy of Machiavelli. I've long held that supreme court justices are some of the smartest people in the United States, and this really just proves it. Were I to try and undermine this law, I couldn't have thought of a way near as smart as this.

Ailaros wrote:
But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

Actually quite a few socialist countries are doing rather well. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway (though with Norway its largely from petrochemical resources), and China all seem to be humming along nicely. Hell, even France is in decent shape.

Oh, and incidentally, people can always use the government to enforce greed. People can use the government for whatever they want given sufficient power. Legal protections only work because people agree to them, or the state is willing to enforce them. Of course it takes time to generate that power, or to overcome the compelling state authority, but that gets into the bit below about the absence of superiority with respect to either a socialist or capitalist system (to the extent that they're mutually exclusive, which they really aren't).

Ailaros wrote:
If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Well, except over the short term. And even then, all economic systems have a degree of central planning involved, even if we're only talking about things like property rights.

Ailaros wrote:
Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

Interestingly the same argument could be made regarding capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no single, perfect system, and the system that works is largely decided by what the population will bear. Start removing regulations and benefits (or outright failing to provide), and eventually you see a negative reaction from the populace, try to enforce your choices against popular will and eventually people start wanting you dead; and perhaps more importantly are willing to risk their own safety in order to compromise yours.

Ailaros wrote:
In this case, the only people who are going to be subjected to the tax are people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place. The only people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place are poor people.

It's a tax that the rich are already avoiding, and that the middle class, if they're not already avoiding it, will be relatively easy to avoid. A tax that is only practically leveled on poor people and not the rich is regressive. End of.

Those for whom the cost of the cheapest possible plan exceeds 8% of their per anum income are exempt from the tax, as are those with incomes below the filing threshold.

Cadorius wrote:
A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate.

Actually no, it originated in the House as H.R. 3590. Once the House proposes an appropriations bill the Senate is free to, as with all other proposed legislation, amend it as it sees fit and subsequently agree to the amended version; which must subsequently agreed to by the House. This is why you saw so much back and forth regarding Senate and House version of the bill, and why the House was the final hurdle in passing it.

In practice the House essentially has no more authority over appropriations than the Senate.

Cadorius wrote:
Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The waivers are difficult to challenge, as you have to demonstrate immediate harm to bring the case to trial.

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Please explain to me how Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. have decreased access to healthcare?

So, you only have a certain amount of healthcare available, and it's not going to ever be able to cover the infinite demand for it. In the case of the US at the moment, what brings the amount of healthcare consumption more in line with what's available is the price of healthcare, although with insurance, it's far from a perfect system.

In other countries where things are fixed, the government decides who gets healthcare, and who doesn't, and of what quality (depending on the country). In this case, the government decreases healthcare consumption to the amount that's available.

No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:But they're not on the brink of total collapse due to their health care, so please try not to create a straw man.

But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

I don't really want to get into a political debate about socialism vs. capitalism here, since I'm not a fan of either and those discussions ultimately polarize themselves within the first two posts, but I will say this much:

1) You really ought to stop thinking about things with such a polarized view. Neither system works well in its extreme form. Communist Russia circa mid-20th century and pre-revolution France are excellent examples of what happens when neither system is hedged. IMO, the best system (as has been demonstrated by many countries that are NOT economically crashing, such as Canada, Norway or Sweden, for example. I think even France isn't doing too poorly at the moment.) seems to be a system of capitalist values with socialist restrictions on the marketplace. In other words: the government stays out of private businesses, but does set limits as to how those businesses can operate. It's no different than saying that an NFL team can call any play they want, so long as they stay within the rules of the NFL.

2) The underlined statement is not a reflection of socialism, it is a reflection of laissez-faire capitalism. I understand that you're in a bind about the individual mandate right now, but you would do well to take breather and examine things with a clear head, because the points you are trying to make seem to be rooted in demagoguery rather than fact.

Cadorius wrote:

olympia wrote:Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

He actually gift wrapped it for opponents of the bill while preserving the image of the SCOTUS and shielding himself from future accusations of partisanship. It's a giant you to Obama and most people don't even realize it yet. It's hilarious. Obamacare supporters are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate. Also, since it is a tax, it would only take 51 votes (not 60) in the Senate to strike down (that is to say, there are plenty of ways to crack this nut). Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The ruling also sets a hard limit on the commerce clause for the first time ever. The Medicare ruling allows states to challenge unfunded federal mandates. The Medicaid ruling prevents Congress from withholding healthcare funding from states that don't comply. These are major victories for states' rights.

And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

That's interesting, but if SCOTUS ruled that it was a tax and taxes must originate in the House would they not have immediately declared it unconstitutional or would that require a different suit, or does it fall to the legislative branch to fix it like the hughes amendment?

Actually....I think everyone focusing on the fact the SCOTUS didn't shoot it down and Robert flipping....give it time. Since its now a "tax" I'm sure someone researching it to see if its repealable

Ailaros wrote:

youbedead wrote: If you don't have to pay for doctors visits you are far more likely to take preventive measures thereby reducing future costs dramatically and overall reducing the cost of healthcare.

But this isn't true. Preventative medicine doesn't save you money over the long term. Preventitive medicine isn't free. All those MRIs and CT scans and doctors visits that yield no benefit (because you weren't sick) cost money and resources. Lots of money goes in, and only once in a very while do you see real savings from individuals. It's exactly the same faulty reasoning that causes people to play the lottery. People see the relatively low up-front cost and see what the payout is on that very rare chance that it benefits you and gets suckered into playing. Just like how the lottery makes poor people poorer, so does a system like this make a whole country poorer.

Plus, think of it practically here. If preventative medicine saved money in the long-term over large populations, then insurance companies would REQUIRE you to engage in preventative care, because it would save the insurance company money. As it is, most insurance companies don't cover preventative care at all, or only minimally cover it. This is because it's a bad investment. You lose money over all. If insurance has taught us anything, it's that it's cheaper to let people get cancer and then pay to cure it, than it is to make everybody go in for mandatory cancer screenings. Indeed, the only places that even do things like this (free mammograms, for example), are places that aren't required to make a profit (like planned parenthood and catholic hospitals).

Thats my point preventative health care isn't free thats why it is not practiced in the US. IN countries where cost is covered by taxes preventative care is practiced quite heavily. If the cost is covered by the health care provider then there is a major incentive for practicing preventive care. As for why insurance companies don't cover it it is the same reason that most car insurance companies( that cocer repairs) don't cover general maintenance desptite the fact that it dramatically increases the lifespan of a car and decreases the likelihood of a major failure. No would ever say that it is a bad investment
to make sure your car is well maintained.

youbedead wrote: Can you show support for your claim that more people are denied healthcare in socialized medicine (This goes out to anyone, does anyone have actual numbers of those denied coverage in America, Britain, canada, etc,)

It feels like a half dozen times a year, British newspapers break a horror story about their NHS system. If you really want me to dreg up some, I could. But that's not the point, of course.

The point is economic. If you only have so much of a service that you can give out, and you increase the number of people who get a slice of that zero-sum pie, then it makes everyone else's pie slice smaller. It's one of the things that's hidden in the data presented here, actually.

AustonT wrote:That's interesting, but if SCOTUS ruled that it was a tax and taxes must originate in the House would they not have immediately declared it unconstitutional or would that require a different suit, or does it fall to the legislative branch to fix it like the hughes amendment?

As I said above, the bill did, as with all appropriations bills, originate in the House. Simply because a bill originates in the House does not mean that the final version as passed will not predominantly follow from amendments made by the Senate.

People often overstate the importance of the original source of a bill with respect to its final content. Basically all that forcing a bill to originate in the House does is give the House the final vote on the finished product.

azazel the cat wrote:No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.

What I'm talking about isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of economic common sense. Healthcare is a limited resource at any given time. Giving certain people more and certain people less doesn't change this fact.

If you've got a certain group of people that have access to a resource, and you change the system so that more people have access to said resource, the original group must use less if the new group uses more. Politics doesn't change math.

dogma wrote:Actually quite a few socialist countries are doing rather well. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway (though with Norway its largely from petrochemical resources), and China all seem to be humming along nicely. Hell, even France is in decent shape.

Germany is a real counterexample (which, I should note, is probably the least socialist of that group, while Belgium is on the verge of its own bailout after its failed bailout of its own banks.

Of course, all the nordic countries (to which I'd also add micro-states like Leichtenstein) are doing fine. You'd be surprised what tiny countries that can basically practice alchemy can afford to get away with. Just look at Quatar, Dubai, or Bhutan. Of course, that's the problem, really. Human beings are virtually incapable of forsight. Yes, they're doing fine now, but the system is deeply flawed. Norway only gets something for nothing because it costs them basically nothing to pump black gold into their economy. Once that stops working, just how sustainable is their free-lunch economic system really?

I'd also note that scandinavian socialism isn't actually as socialist as a lot of people like to think. Their labor laws are much less restrictive, for example.

dogma wrote:Oh, and incidentally, people can always use the government to enforce greed. People can use the government for whatever they want given sufficient power.

If anything, this is an argument for making governments do less. It's basically the same problem that left-leaning people have with corporations. Once power becomes concentrated, you greatly amplify the ability for corruption to exist, as well as greatly expanding the damage done by bad decisions.

dogma wrote:Well, except over the short term. And even then, all economic systems have a degree of central planning involved, even if we're only talking about things like property rights.

Right, and I'm not trying to be an anarchist, here.

The one thing we have learned, empirically, though, is that the best systems in the world are the ones that create an environment of barely controlled chaos. Too much chaos (like everywhere in the least developed world) is bad, but once you hit that point where basic stability is enforceable, every step towards more centralization is a step towards less wealth for fewer people over the long term.

dogma wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

Interestingly the same argument could be made regarding capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Not well, though.

Take Korea as a perfect example. In 1948, everything was the same. Same geography (Korea), same demography (they were all Koreans), same economic situation (poor). For the last 60 years, you took a single sample and split it in two and gave one set a very decentralized system (the south), and the other a highly centralized system (the north). 60 years later, the poorest people in south korea are way, way better off than they were 60 years ago. Their lifespans have drastically improved, and they now have access to things like the internet that allows them to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, along with countless improvements in their material standard of life.

Meanwhile in the north, things are so bad that their population has shrunk to the point where they no longer have enough people to maintain what they once had. There aren't enough people to maintain tractors, so people are going back to plowing fields with oxen while previously claimed farmland is going to waste for the inability to maintain it. The people there literally starve to death every day, and they don't have access to things that are considered basic in the west like electricity. Quality of life is slowly returning to where it was in the 1500's.

Same people in the same place. The centralized system has caused utter ruin and misery, while the decentralized system has made things much, much better for nearly everybody.

The same is true when you compare east and west germany. Once again, same place, same people. By the end, east germans had to wait on a 15 year waiting list to get one of the worst cars ever made, while even poor people in the west could just walk down to a local store and buy a beater that was still better than a brand new east german car. Meanwhile, east germany was turned into an ecological wasteland, as well as a country filled with terrible privation.

The same is true when you consider eastern european countries and western european countries, and when you compare the united states to the former soviet union (which, I would emphasize, is the FORMER soviet union).

If the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that decentralized economies bring unparalleled wealth and prosperity to almost everybody, while centralized economies bring unparalleled privation and destitution to almost everybody. The more centralized, the worse off you are. If you want to make an argument to the opposite, you've going to have to come up with an awful lot of data to the contrary.

Some countries that are able to pump money out of the ground in the form of oil or diamonds, or whatever, have been able to make it work in the short term, but even then, if they're centralized, most people are still kept very poor. Just look at African countries suffering from the "curse" of natural resources.

dogma wrote:Those for whom the cost of the cheapest possible plan exceeds 8% of their per anum income are exempt from the tax, as are those with incomes below the filing threshold.

Yes, some people will be exempt. More people than will be exempted won't be.

I'm in this exact case where health insurance would cost only a few percentages of my gross income (so I don't qualify), but still ruins me because my net income isn't high enough to afford insurance. I'm going to lose my home over this. That other people won't isn't all that terribly comforting.

Ailaros wrote:
Germany is a real counterexample (which, I should note, is probably the least socialist of that group, while Belgium is on the verge of its own bailout after its failed bailout of its own banks.

That has less to do with Belgium's economic policy than the tight connections of several of its banks to Greece, among others.

Ailaros wrote:
You'd be surprised what tiny countries that can basically practice alchemy can afford to get away with. Just look at Quatar, Dubai, or Bhutan.

It helps when you're sitting on massive energy reserves (Bhutan's is hydroelectricity), or in the case of Dubai serve as the banking center of a "conglomerate" that does.

Ailaros wrote:
Of course, that's the problem, really. Human beings are virtually incapable of forsight. Yes, they're doing fine now, but the system is deeply flawed. Norway only gets something for nothing because it costs them basically nothing to pump black gold into their economy. Once that stops working, just how sustainable is their free-lunch economic system really?

Not very, but that's sort of the point. Sustainability isn't about permanence, its about making a particular system work for a particular period of time. Inevitably all economies must change in order to adapt to existing conditions, even relatively free market systems ultimately have to accept the fact that the people operating within them will eventually want to take advantage of the fruits of the labor of past generations.

I mean, really, what's the point of pouring effort into a system if it never actually pays dividends to any of its members at any point? Very few people are will to work for the prospect of more work.

Ailaros wrote:
If anything, this is an argument for making governments do less. It's basically the same problem that left-leaning people have with corporations. Once power becomes concentrated, you greatly amplify the ability for corruption to exist, as well as greatly expanding the damage done by bad decisions.

Indeed it is, but historically it doesn't play out that way. Keep in mind I'm not really interested in what should happen, so much as what actually does. Power tends to concentrate simply because any advantage in power you already possess makes it easier to acquire more. If you can develop popular support for government controls on industry, or get enough guns together, you're going to get government controls on industry. If you can do the same for less government intrusion, you'll get less government intrusion, though likely force power to concentrate elsewhere. Conversely, and really powerful state, or private entity (though practically the difference is semantic) will be much harder to oppose due to its ability to exert authority over new threats.

Its a balancing act, not an either or solution.

Ailaros wrote:...but once you hit that point where basic stability is enforceable, every step towards more centralization is a step towards less wealth for fewer people over the long term.

We agree, at least insofar as we're not limiting "centralization" to the state, but also including private entities.

Ailaros wrote:
Same people in the same place. The centralized system has caused utter ruin and misery, while the decentralized system has made things much, much better for nearly everybody.

South Korea is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Its most rapid growth took place under what was, essentially, a series of autocratic regimes that enforced a highly liberal economy from the top down; inevitably being toppled by labor unions and students seeking both democracy and improved social policies.

Ailaros wrote:
If the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that decentralized economies bring unparalleled wealth and prosperity to almost everybody, while centralized economies bring unparalleled privation and destitution to almost everybody. The more centralized, the worse off you are. If you want to make an argument to the opposite, you've going to have to come up with an awful lot of data to the contrary.

I'm not really arguing against that so much as against the notion that its a binary choice. You don't have either a centralized or decentralized economy, you have economies that exist along a sliding scale of centralization and decentralization, and that too much of either produces negative outcomes.

This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.

What I'm talking about isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of economic common sense. Healthcare is a limited resource at any given time. Giving certain people more and certain people less doesn't change this fact.

If you've got a certain group of people that have access to a resource, and you change the system so that more people have access to said resource, the original group must use less if the new group uses more. Politics doesn't change math.

Yes they do, because it's all about resource allocation. In Canada, our health care system is controlled by the government in order to ensure that the prices will be constant. Then, we allocate enough economic resources towards health care so that there is enough to go around for everyone. This is where your mindset is tripping you up: you're used to seeing healthcare as being something that there is not enough of in a zero-sum game, whereas in Canada we don't play that, and instead just allocate more resources into health care so that everyone gets it, as much as they need. It's as simple as that. Yes, it is one of the most significant drains on our economy, but nobody ever complains, because we generally all recognize its importance. Instead, we take resources away from things that few people up here give a crap about -like military spending- and invest thta money into our population in the form of education and health care.

Ailaros wrote:Take Korea as a perfect example. In 1948, everything was the same. Same geography (Korea), same demography (they were all Koreans), same economic situation (poor). For the last 60 years, you took a single sample and split it in two and gave one set a very decentralized system (the south), and the other a highly centralized system (the north). 60 years later, the poorest people in south korea are way, way better off than they were 60 years ago. Their lifespans have drastically improved, and they now have access to things like the internet that allows them to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, along with countless improvements in their material standard of life.

Meanwhile in the north, things are so bad that their population has shrunk to the point where they no longer have enough people to maintain what they once had. There aren't enough people to maintain tractors, so people are going back to plowing fields with oxen while previously claimed farmland is going to waste for the inability to maintain it. The people there literally starve to death every day, and they don't have access to things that are considered basic in the west like electricity. Quality of life is slowly returning to where it was in the 1500's.

That argument is so assinine that it must have come from a pop-up book written by Rush Limbaugh.
Here are the most important things that need to be noted:
1) Noth Korea is not an example of socialism; it is an example of despotism. Big, big difference.
2) You can't claim that political ideologies are responsible for North Korea's troubles, when they use something like 65% of their GDP on the military, have almost no trading partners, have generally poor agricultural land. They could be a republic or a feudal monarchy (the latter, they almost are) and they would be in no better shape. In other words, every single thing about North Korea is screwed up, without regard to its political compass.

So again, please stop trying to create straw man arguments.

I think a better example would be the USA and Canada. Generally the same geography, generally the same demographics (excluding some cultural differences), and Canada's economy has been closely linked to that of the US since forever. Now, I'm pretty sure that Canada is doing better economically than the USA, however I will also state that Canada is largely a resource-based country, whereas the USA has traditionally be a manufacturing-oriented one. Too bad that NAFTA allowed all of those capitalist corporations to increase their profits by moving their manufacturing plants to mexico, and thus eviscerated your economy. But as I said earlier: such are the joys of laissez-faire capitalism, though. And anyway, that doesn't take away from the point that universal health care is sustainable, but you first have to cast aside your religious-like zeal for unregulated capitalism. (heavily regulated capitalism is fine, though. That's what we do and it works great.)

d-usa wrote:This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

erm. As one of the evil conservative supervillians of Dakka that wants real socialized medicine...Do I get my own picture?

The funny thing about the Korea example is that S. Korea has socialized medicine while N. Korea doesn't. Just because a country is "Socialist" (actually a dictatorship) doesn't equal universal healthcare.

I lived in S. Korea 4 1/2 years, loved their healthcare system.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

erm. As one of the evil conservative supervillians of Dakka that wants real socialized medicine...Do I get my own picture?

Riding in the car like in the first picture, partying with guns in hand, and a "keep of my lawn" sign in the back seat?

agnosto wrote:The funny thing about the Korea example is that S. Korea has socialized medicine while N. Korea doesn't. Just because a country is "Socialist" (actually a dictatorship) doesn't equal universal healthcare.

I lived in S. Korea 4 1/2 years, loved their healthcare system.

Not to mention that south korea like most south pacific nations had (and still do) massively government subsidized companies.

I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

BTW... the hospital in question, charged me $350 before I even got seen by the PA. So I got "seen" by a hospital admin before treatment.

On Bill Maher tonight Fareed Zakaria said something interesting. That Taiwan, in the 90s, decided that they had enough money to put together a universal healthcare system, and basically did what Frazzled has repeatedly suggested. They looked at all the healthcare systems extant around the world, and looked for the best features and model. The concluded that a single-payer system like Canada's is actually the best, resulting in the best combination of best outcomes and cost control.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

I'm with ya.

Mannahnin wrote:On Bill Maher tonight Fareed Zakaria said something interesting. That Taiwan, in the 90s, decided that they had enough money to put together a universal healthcare system, and basically did what Frazzled has repeatedly suggested. They looked at all the healthcare systems extant around the world, and looked for the best features and model. The concluded that a single-payer system like Canada's is actually the best, resulting in the best combination of best outcomes and cost control.

Wooooooooo! WE'RE NUMBER (thirty)ONE! WE'RE NUMBER (thirty)ONE!

dogma wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

You are both wrong; all you need is duct tape.

Duct tape and drink water

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

Because it was to the bone and on my right hand..... and would not stop bleeding. they tried dermabond first too.