Originally posted by Schecter
nowhere have you presented a convincing argument that we cannot afford universal healthcare (or 'socialized' healthcare as idiots like to call it).
True enough...but I was responding to the claim that the national debt doesn't matter. Would anybody care to point out why our failing dollar doesn't matter?
Originally posted by Schecter
they (ush) simply stated that our ever growing and shrinking national debt is irrelevant to whether or not we could afford universal healthcare. i suspect he is right.
I seem to recall him mentioning that depression isn't something to worry about because it is accompanied by a boom right afterward.
Let me put it this way: what does a depression do to national health care?
Originally posted by Quark_666
I seem to recall him mentioning that depression isn't something to worry about because it is accompanied by a boom right afterward.Let me put it this way: what does a depression do to national health care?
first off, we are facing a possible recession, NOT a depression. get the images of millions of raggedly dressed unemployed middle class waiting on line at the soup kitchen out of your head. even if it did come to that then national healthcare would be just one of many many MANY worries.
your thinking is based upon the assumption that taxes would be diverted from education and other government programs and never considers that we would pay extra in taxes for said coverage.
not to shift topics, but if there is one thing the iraq war has proven is that the u.s. can afford to hemorage hundreds of billions of dollars a year and stay afloat. this is out of existing revenue.
we get it "zomg we're broke". well we're not. im not. are you?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
How much actually is health insurance (per annum)?
Well, ultimately it depends on a lot of factors, but the info I'm finding (from here) says that an average premium for family health insurance is currently about $12,000 per year. And even though most people with insurance get it through their employer and thus only pay about a quarter to a third of that on average, the number of people who do get coverage through work is decreasing and the amount paid out of pocket is increasing.
Originally posted by LanaObviously coverage by the employer is ultimately paid by the employee as well.
Well, ultimately it depends on a lot of factors, but the info I'm finding (from here) says that an average premium for family health insurance is currently about $12,000 per year. And even though most people with insurance get it through their employer and thus only pay about a quarter to a third of that on average, the number of people who do get coverage through work is decreasing and the amount paid out of pocket is increasing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the problem I see. People believe for some reason that the US is a free market, capitalist society already, which is of course nonsense. The size of the government alone speaks against that. The problem the US has is not the free market running rampant, but the large government being immensely vulnerable to lobbyists, which ****s the free market so hard up the ass and only plays in the hands of big corporations and large interest groups. It's sad how capitalism is the ideologie that gets all the shit for the US being sucky, while it is really just the opposite that's doing it.
Yes, it is a problem. But you repeat, ad naus, that the free market is going to solve all our problems. If you got what you wanted and the government was reduced and the market, controlled by the very companies we're talking about, was freed to manage itself, I don't understand how you think it think that will somehow result in citizens suddenly not being taken advantage of or becoming better, more informed consumers; not to mention the idea that a small government can't be influenced by lobbyists.
Originally posted by Devil KingA small government can be influenced by lobbyists, it just can't decide important matters.
Yes, it is a problem. But you repeat, ad naus, that the free market is going to solve all our problems. If you got what you wanted and the government was reduced and the market, controlled by the very companies we're talking about, was freed to manage itself, I don't understand how you think it think that will somehow result in citizens suddenly not being taken advantage of or becoming better, more informed consumers; not to mention the idea that a small government can't be influenced by lobbyists.
Just as you do not see how the free market would solve your problems, I can not see how more government intervention will. The consumers don't need to become more informed, though I suppose they might, they just hopefully would do what they do already in other parts, look for the cheapest alternative. You seem to have the idea that it is your responsibility to take care of the blind, ill informed masses, but that's just the kind of idea that brought you into this mess you are in, people need to feel that they are solely responsible for themselves, cause ultimately they are and should be.
Originally posted by Bardock42
A small government can be influenced by lobbyists, it just can't decide important matters.Just as you do not see how the free market would solve your problems, I can not see how more government intervention will. The consumers don't need to become more informed, though I suppose they might, they just hopefully would do what they do already in other parts, look for the cheapest alternative. You seem to have the idea that it is your responsibility to take care of the blind, ill informed masses, but that's just the kind of idea that brought you into this mess you are in, people need to feel that they are solely responsible for themselves, cause ultimately they are and should be.
Responsible for themselves? They are responsible for themselves. What the government does is help those at the very bottom and the very top. Those of us in the middle are left to fend for ourselves. Take the national minimum wage as an example; $5.85 an hour. If you take the average 40 hour work week, that's what, 230 bucks a week BEFORE taxes? Who the hell can live on that? So, they have to work more than 40 hours a week. Shall we go back to the days where there were no needless labour laws that aren't outlined in the constitution? The smaller government, hands off my money, approach seems to follow the idea of trickle down economics, and the past has proven all that trickle to be the big business pissing on the middle and lower classes. You don't really think Ron Paul is the only one that's used the idea of hands off government funneling it's way down to the average American citizen, do you?
And who the hell wants the cheapest alternative? You're saying America WANTS to dress in that piece of shit $60 Wal-Mart suit? You keep saying that if they didn't want it, they'd buy it elsewhere and that government involvment is what's keeping competition from puching the market. Well, it's not when it comes to the cheaper alternatives, it's that big business you think will benefit from competition sending their lobbyists to Washington.
Your whole spiel has been about the individual looking out for themselves; well who's going to look out for themselves when the companies you think will act so responsible haven't done so in the past when they were free to do as they pleased? Personal responsability, personal responsability, personal responsability! Well, how the hell are we supposed to expect these companies, that are motivated soley by profit, to just do the right thing? You're saying if they don't, we stop shopping there and go across the street and buy there, but they're going to do the same thing! They want our money too. How do we stop them from doing it? Don't regulate them, just let the public decide. But how to we retaliat when they screw us over too? Sue them? And what happens there? We institute regulations based on those rulings. And then to enforce those regulations we build up government bureaucracy, which is exactly what this country has done. Deciding to just set the clock back to zero is not what's in the best interest of a country of 300 million citizens. So, cut the wasteful bureaucracy, but don't loose sight of why it developed in the first place. This government is a business, and I'm amazed that someone like Ron Paul who can make so much sense on one hand, totally ignore why he's pissed on the other. Personal responsability is a great thing, but running the government like those businesses don't have to be, isn't.
Originally posted by Devil King
Responsible for themselves? They are responsible for themselves. What the government does is help those at the very bottom and the very top. Those of us in the middle are left to fend for ourselves. Take the national minimum wage as an example; $5.85 an hour. If you take the average 40 hour work week, that's what, 230 bucks a week BEFORE taxes? Who the hell can live on that? So, they have to work more than 40 hours a week. Shall we go back to the days where there were no needless labour laws that aren't outlined in the constitution? The smaller government, hands off my money, approach seems to follow the idea of trickle down economics, and the past has proven all that trickle to be the big business pissing on the middle and lower classes. You don't really think Ron Paul is the only one that's used the idea of hands off government funneling it's way down to the average American citizen, do you?And who the hell wants the cheapest alternative? You're saying America WANTS to dress in that piece of shit $60 Wal-Mart suit? You keep saying that if they didn't want it, they'd buy it elsewhere and that government involvment is what's keeping competition from puching the market. Well, it's not when it comes to the cheaper alternatives, it's that big business you think will benefit from competition sending their lobbyists to Washington.
Your whole spiel has been about the individual looking out for themselves; well who's going to look out for themselves when the companies you think will act so responsible haven't done so in the past when they were free to do as they pleased? Personal responsability, personal responsability, personal responsability! Well, how the hell are we supposed to expect these companies, that are motivated soley by profit, to just do the right thing? You're saying if they don't, we stop shopping there and go across the street and buy there, but they're going to do the same thing! They want our money too. How do we stop them from doing it? Don't regulate them, just let the public decide. But how to we retaliat when they screw us over too? Sue them? And what happens there? We institute regulations based on those rulings. And then to enforce those regulations we build up government bureaucracy, which is exactly what this country has done. Deciding to just set the clock back to zero is not what's in the best interest of a country of 300 million citizens. So, cut the wasteful bureaucracy, but don't loose sight of why it developed in the first place. This government is a business, and I'm amazed that someone like Ron Paul who can make so much sense on one hand, totally ignore why he's pissed on the other. Personal responsability is a great thing, but running the government like those businesses don't have to be, isn't.
I am not sure why you think a free market means that there are no regulations in place, but apparently that seems to be your problem with it. Well, maybe it will help you to know that in most free marekt theories I am aware of and certainly in the one I am proposing, the companies can't run amok, there would be laws protecting the voluntary exchange, there would be laws against fraug, there'd be anti trust laws and there even be environmental laws. Free market does not equate to the companies can do what the **** they want. So, if that's your only real concern about that, I hope that helped you.
But the thing is that companies screw people much less over than they would like to belive, WalMart offering you a suit for 10 bucks is not them screwing you over in any way. There's no one that forces you to buy it and it might even be extreme shit quality (thoug, in my experience, WalmArt doesn't even have particularly shitty products).
I am confused now, well, for now I'd like to make those two points, if I totally disregarded something in your post (which is likely, cause it confused me), please tell me, I'll try to respond.