Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we go again With the communism straw-man! Who the hell wants communism?.
Well, it's like this. Nobody is going to come out and say "I'm a power hungry communist". They have to be more subtle than that. So they go for what's been referred to as "the totalitarian tiptoe".
The process works like this.
1. Create a problem
2. The public reacts
3. Provide the "solution" you've wanted to provide all along, which always involvees centralizing power/control.
Since we were talking about health care, I'll use this as an example of how this plays out.
1. Create health care problem by reducing competition via employer sponsorhip. This locks the average person into an employer sponsored plan that they can't get out of except by changing jobs. Of course, at first, paying out of pocket was not a big deal. But over time, this anti-competitive system became more and more expensive, and paying out of pocket became less and less do-able for people.
Then, add on to #1 by creating Medicare/medicaid....which also were set up to discourage free market competition, and so became cost bloated. This cost bloat, of course, is mostly hidden from the consumer, because he/she doesn't even know (and often doesn't care) the true cost of his/her care. And even if he/she does, there's little he/she can do about it in an anti-competitive system.
2. You get the reaction. Eventually, people scream. They want the government to "do something". In reagard to health care, this has taken 70 years to play out in the US. People want to be free of the tyranny of the employer based health care system or are dumped out because it is now too expensive for a lot of employers.
3. You get the solution...Obamacare, which could very well be the thing that makes the US go the way of Greece, considering we already spend around 18% of GDP on health care, with those figures climbing year after year. Ultimately, the solution always involves some kind of centralization of power/control. The health care bill is 2500 pages. No one even knows what it says, but the direction of where the power and control are going is clear....up to the top. We've gone from one kind of tryanny to an even worse kind.
The elite have a very long time horizon. The average person doesn't. So power in democratic forms of government flows to the top over time, as fearful people vote away their rights. It's known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
If facts seem to circumvent you. Not one UHC system has found a way to circumvent cost... They never have and never will because human desire is much greater than supply to those that need it. If given unfettered control virtually every human would spend the entire world's income to stay alive.
Not one private sector system has found a way to circumvent cost! What's the argument, BigJon?? That we should avoid anything to save a life, because it will always have some cost associated with it? Or that anyone unable to pay should simply have the decency to die?
And what of those who DO pay, they pay every month, for decades, and when the time comes for them to be injured or sick (because everyone gets sick), the insurance company denies them, to keep every dollar from that killer premium they paid all those years? That can't be right. That can't be the "Costless" system you envision!
Some earlier posts are amusing. Obama not a liberal or progressive? Obama is a moderate or even a conservative? Downright hilarious. Two or three did get it right. Obama is none of the above. He is a Bolshevik, and always has been. To many of us on the Right, he is the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin, with similar goals.
No. My argument is against this recent notion that SS is somehow illiquid or even insolvent, when it will only begin the "slide" toward lower payouts in 25 years. Not illiquidity, but slightly lower payouts. Not a crisis. Not a big deal. With a tiny hike in tax rates, or a small adjustment in other factors, we could extend that "slide" by another couple decades, which is a far cry from "Insolvency! Panic! Kill the socialist program before it eats us alive!"
There is no reason to panic. If Social Security is a Titanic, we have fifty years before it "hits" anything like an iceberg and starts to sink. Even THEN, we could live with lower payouts. There is no "zero" point within the next hundred years.
There is no "running out of funds", even were nothing changed. That point is so far in the future, it's like sixty administrations down the line.
So when we hit $21 trillion in debt we should raise taxes. At the rate we're going taxes will raise every year till we hit that cieling and everyone is taxed to the max they can afford and it's distributed out evenly or whatever gets our public officials elected. And then that dreaded term communism becomes a better choice than any other. And no, it's 27 years out... Something that flew by in my lifetime!
Well, it's like this. Nobody is going to come out and say "I'm a power hungry communist". They have to be more subtle than that. So they go for what's been referred to as "the totalitarian tiptoe".
The process works like this.
1. Create a problem
2. The public reacts
3. Provide the "solution" you've wanted to provide all along, which always involvees centralizing power/control.
Since we were talking about health care, I'll use this as an example of how this plays out.
1. Create health care problem by reducing competition via employer sponsorhip. This locks the average person into an employer sponsored plan that they can't get out of except by changing jobs. Of course, at first, paying out of pocket was not a big deal. But over time, this anti-competitive system became more and more expensive, and paying out of pocket became less and less do-able for people.
Then, add on to #1 by creating Medicare/medicaid....which also were set up to discourage free market competition, and so became cost bloated. This cost bloat, of course, is mostly hidden from the consumer, because he/she doesn't even know (and often doesn't care) the true cost of his/her care. And even if he/she does, there's little he/she can do about it in an anti-competitive system.
2. You get the reaction. Eventually, people scream. They want the government to "do something". In reagard to health care, this has taken 70 years to play out in the US. People want to be free of the tyranny of the employer based health care system or are dumped out because it is now too expensive for a lot of employers.
3. You get the solution...Obamacare, which could very well be the thing that makes the US go the way of Greece, considering we already spend around 18% of GDP on health care, with those figures climbing year after year. Ultimately, the solution always involves some kind of centralization of power/control. The health care bill is 2500 pages. No one even knows what it says, but the direction of where the power and control are going is clear....up to the top. We've gone from one kind of tryanny to an even worse kind.
The elite have a very long time horizon. The average person doesn't. So power in democratic forms of government flows to the top over time, as fearful people vote away their rights. It's known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
See, you're starting off with the wrong premise already. What you really mean is..."only the rich can afford it now, in today's non competitive, f*cked up system".
It goes back to history. It wasn't that long ago that people paid out of pocket for their health care and that was that. If we had a true free market, most people would be able to afford their own health care. But we abandoned the free market in health care 70 years ago, long before you and I were born. Over time, health care turned into the high cost monster it is today.
We have gone from a few people not being able to afford health care to possibly bankrupting ourselves as a nation because of its high costs (amonsgt other things). But people like yourself will not understand that until it happens....and maybe not even then. There's a good chance you'll be like the people in Greece, rioting in the streets, but with no true understanding of how things went awry.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 09-07-2010 at 10:58 PM..
Some earlier posts are amusing. Obama not a liberal or progressive? Obama is a moderate or even a conservative? Downright hilarious. Two or three did get it right. Obama is none of the above. He is a Bolshevik, and always has been. To many of us on the Right, he is the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin, with similar goals.
Based on which action he has taken? Based on which policy? We are talking about his current administration, not what he said on the campaign trail.
See, you're starting off with the wrong premise already. What you really mean is..."only the rich can afford it now, in todays' f*cked up system".
It goes back to history. It wasn't that long ago that people paid out of pocket for their health care and that was that. If we had a true free market, most people would be able to afford their own health care. But we abandoned the free market in health care 70 years ago, long before you and I were born. Over time, health care turned into the high cost monster it is today.
Fine. But the country was also MUCH different 70 years ago. And much smaller. Oh, and healthcare did not involve genetic engineering, hundred-dollar pills for cancer, and a host of other high-tech services we simply "must" have.
Not to mention there are more countries than America, and Greece. Greece is but one example, mysticalty! There are plenty of other nations with national coverage that have longer lifespans on average than Americans, and a higher standard of health and living (per dollar). Either way, the cost is coming out of the citizens. Shall it be funneled into a ravenous for-profit system, ever-ratcheting up the costs? Or taxed, and given away to all of the citizens regardless of status?
There is no "perfect" solution, short of some technological breakthrough that fixes all bodily ailments. I guess I come down on the side of more efficiency, which is what universal coverage offers. Yes, you will probably have a higher quality of care for a select few millionaires and billionaires within our current system, but those people will be A-OK no matter what country they live in!
Not one private sector system has found a way to circumvent cost!
There's no developed country that even has a private sector system any more. All, in varying degrees, have seen health care costs go up as a % of GDP, although none as bad as the US.
US spending as % of GDP on health care in 1960: 5.2%. In 2008: 16.2%.
I couldn't find stats that go back further than 1960. But we can see that the costs in non free market systems get bloated over time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the communism straw-man! Who the hell wants communism?.
