The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[Hulkblood]

Yes

That was a crucial fact and partially the basis of your opinion. If you couldn't get that right why would I waste my time reading the rest? Can only imagine what other "categorical" errors you might make ... like thinking healthcare is a commodity or something else ridiculous

Please see my above post regarding healthcare, re-read the other posts I offered on the subject and post something that REALLY contributes to the argument. Maybe something with more insight? You are either a man of few words and deep thoughts or a man who does not have the faculties to engage in a real debate. I am leaning towards the latter...

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

And another dodge of Egan's point...

 

[Skinny Viking]

Please see my above post regarding healthcare, re-read the other posts I offered on the subject and post something that REALLY contributes to the argument. Maybe something with more insight? You are either a man of few words and deep thoughts or a man who does not have the faculties to engage in a real debate. I am leaning towards the latter...

I'm SMART ... I have IDEAS and things!

-Fredo

 

[JeffTD]

So healthcare is not a market good? Why? Because you and a relatively small group of people say it isn't? That is like saying it looks like a duck, acts like a duck but you are calling it a dog because you want it to be? No matter how much you want it to be a "dog" it will never be one! I guess we should re-write the economics text books because your moral argument offers "another solution". And while we're at it, why don't we offer a house to everyone that does not have one, because we all know that everyone has a right to shelter? Right? We all know how that worked out...

Let us take your moral argument for a moment that healthcare is "a right". In order to assert that, you must assert that you have a right to someone Else's services? Is that moral? Even if we say that the services are paid for through a healthcare tax fund...the funds are taken from other people who may or may not directly benefit from the social service or may not want to in the first place? Is that moral?

We both want to see healthcare be more marketable for people. The point is that the socialized approach can't be sustained over the long term with all of the positive effects of a free-market product (skilled medical staff, cutting edge technology, availability of service, etc.) because a socialized system does not offer an accurate price system- which is what guides the productive efforts of every person in a market. I will not expound on how important price theory is because this thread would be really long, I could only hope that you are considering that in your argument.

Regarding your economic analysis...

Where did the creation of consumer credit come from Jeff? If you answer the Federal Reserve, you are right. Could we both agree that the Fed engages in activities that create unintended consequences that negatively affect our economy?

As for the rest of your analysis, there are WAY too many generalities to begin picking them apart. You do make the fatal flaw of assuming "consumption", drives an economy towards some kind of magical prosperity. That is bogus and counter-productive in your argument. Productive capacity is driven by producers. Always has been, always will be. Which is why your the rest of you analysis fails- Production requires capital and capital is pooled and funneled through people who generally have higher incomes. Yet if we were to redistribute wealth from people who pool capital, we would be stuck in a consumer goods cycle because business would not be able to engage in long term investment projects that increase the productive capacity of the nation.

As for Regan..hmmm...let us just say that he is no where near the "free-market" proponent every clueless right-wing nut says he is. Government debt as a percentage of GDP exploded under Regan and in my eyes, that is deplorable.

Also, why do you consistently use the term "Paultard"? Slightly demeaning. Should I lump you in the "Krugtard" group because I don't agree with your logic?

Everyone directly benefits from a healthy population. The argument that people are being taxed for services they don't use is horseshit. Even if you start your own company from the ground-up, you're still delivering your product on roads that were funded by tax dollars, hiring people who were educated and perhaps housed/fed by tax dollars, have your intellectual and physical property rights protected by systems funded by tax dollars, etc...

I have never had a fire start in any of my houses - should I not pay taxes that fund the fire department? That would be ridiculous - if my neighbors house was burning, I'd help him put out the fire because it could very well spread to mine. The same is true for health care; we need to take care of illnesses that might not be our own because the costs will come back to bite us in the ass UNLESS, as Egan has stated and you (and everyone else) have ignored, you're willing to let people die on the streets.

Socialized medicine works incredibly well in other countries. The same cannot be said for free-market based healthcare services and there are plenty of arguments aside from it being untested against it. I'm not willing to risk that with the health of 350 million people.

You're telling me that production fuels an economy? That's absolute horseshit. That's the same clueless right-wing nut logic that you apply to fans of Reagan's policies. Production is useless without consumption. Completely useless. People with higher incomes may pool capital and increase production, but if nobody is there to buy the goods it doesn't matter. Not to mention that these people aren't proportionally increasing demand with their high income.

I use the term Paultard because I believe you have to be retarded or duped to actually buy into his policies. Of course it's demeaning. We've hammered away at these points for the last few months in this thread and continually get people popping up just to rephrase arguments and ignore salient points previously made.

 

[Skinny Viking]

I'm a little gay for you and Egan right now Jeff

 

[JeffTD]

Careful there Carlos... I'm a little gay period.

 

[Jackal_Strain]

Shit, I feel a half-chub coming due to that post Jeff!

 

[Line666]

Gonna jump on the Jeff love here but those were some excellent posts and really summed up the way I feel about socialised health care. I won't wax lyrical because I live in a country where I am the benefactor of it but I do agree it makes a lot of sense to maintain a healthy working populace.

 

[HCL]

State (in the conventional sense, not US states) paid, tax funded health insurance is much better than a nationalized health system. Whether or not it should be implemented is an ideological difference, personally I'm all for it.

I think overall it helps the market more than it hurts.

 

[JeffTD]

State (in the conventional sense, not US states) paid, tax funded health insurance is much better than a nationalized health system. Whether or not it should be implemented is an ideological difference, personally I'm all for it.

I think overall it helps the market more than it hurts.

Just want to clarify exactly what you're talking about; are you speaking of compulsory insurance vs. single-payer programs? If not, can you clarify what you mean by state paid health insurance vs nationalized health system?

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going Good points by both Egan and Jeff. I would like to say though the only issue I think the US would face with socialized medicine is that a comsiderable portion of the population is employed by private, health insurance companies (I once remember a friend from Hartford saying 30% of the city's greater population works in this sector)

I'm all for socialized medicine, but what does this reality propose for people working in the private sector of health?

 

[JeffTD]

There will still be a great deal of demand for private health services - it's not like a single-payer system prevents people from buying better/more comprehensive/faster service.

 

[egan.]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going Good points by both Egan and Jeff. I would like to say though the only issue I think the US would face with socialized medicine is that a comsiderable portion of the population is employed by private, health insurance companies (I once remember a friend from Hartford saying 30% of the city's greater population works in this sector)

I'm all for socialized medicine, but what does this reality propose for people working in the private sector of health?

The same thing a smaller government means for the employees and contractors in that sector or a smaller military means for the employees/contractors in that sector.
All of the numbers I could find for health insurance employment but the number between 300k-500k total in the US.

 

[HCL]

Just want to clarify exactly what you're talking about; are you speaking of compulsory insurance vs. single-payer programs? If not, can you clarify what you mean by state paid health insurance vs nationalized health system?

In both situations the state pays your health bills. In a national insurance system the medical staff work for private companies but your insurance pays them (which is in turn paid by the state). In a NHS system like we have in the UK the state pays the medical staff directly, creating a monopoly. It doesn't work very well.

Germany uses the former system, the UK the latter.

 

[John_C]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going Good points by both Egan and Jeff. I would like to say though the only issue I think the US would face with socialized medicine is that a comsiderable portion of the population is employed by private, health insurance companies (I once remember a friend from Hartford saying 30% of the city's greater population works in this sector)

I'm all for socialized medicine, but what does this reality propose for people working in the private sector of health?

You still need doctors, nurses and admin in a socialised health service.....

 

[Skinny Viking]

I would like to say though the only issue I think the US would face with socialized medicine is that a comsiderable portion of the population is employed by private, health insurance companies (I once remember a friend from Hartford saying 30% of the city's greater population works in this sector)

I'm sure a lot of people worked on making steam boats back in the day as well

 

[SocialNumb]

I wish we had a little button that would allow us to watch a thread burn.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

I wish we had a little button that would allow us to watch a thread burn.

I think it's kind of sad that this is probably the most intelligent conversation I've heard regarding the healthcare topic over the past 2 to 3 months.

Also, has anyone brought up Planned Parenthood yet? If there's anything the South and the Middle America hate more than socialism, it's affordable healthcare for women and education on/access to birth control.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

There will still be a great deal of demand for private health services - it's not like a single-payer system prevents people from buying better/more comprehensive/faster service.

I actually never considered that, maybe employers would offer more competitive healthcare packages?

You still need doctors, nurses and admin in a socialised health service.....

I was more referring to people employed BY insurance companies on the corporate level, salespeople, insurance agents, accountants, company admins., etc.

Also, out of curiosity, how would socialized medicine in the US function on an operating level? How would a federal or state policy differ from a policy with a private company? How would coverage, partial coverage be determined for certain procedures, preventive measures (i.e. check-ups), emergency or catastrophic events, hospice/end of life care, etc.? Also, is any one familiar with Mass. health care system (Romney-care)? That would probably be the best model for the US, but idk...

I'm not sure if our congress is intelligent enough to delegate on this issue alone...

 

[scorpio01169]

I myself don't understand the hatred for "Obamacare" other than Obama signed it into law. The republicans are always screaming, they don't want people to be responsible for their own healthcare, so their tax dollars wont have to pay for other peoples irresponsibilities. well Obamacare tries to make that a possibility, but you don't want government to force them to do so. The republicans want smaller government when there's a democrat president but don't mind so much when there's a republican in office. When a republican president is in office, deficits don't matter, but let a democrat get into office, then "we're spending too much". Republicans want smaller government, and big government out of our lives but government big enough to tell us what religion we should practice or what a woman can do with her body.