Governator Announces Universal Health Coverage Plan

[Abracadabra]

aod, the fact that you are trying to argue that our own tax dollars going towards health care is a bad thing is fucking ridiculous. the system won't be totally awesome and make zillions of dollars for the state. who fucking cares. beats the hell out of dumping trillions of dollars a year into a war that will never be won. so you haven't been to a doctor in years. you're in your fucking 20's dude, of course you haven't. to think that you will never need health care, and very fucking expensive healthcare at that, in your lifetime is living in a fantasy world. chances are that you will be diagnosed with cancer in the next 30 years. all of us probably will. i've smoked cigarettes, i like to eat pizza, i drink and i use spraypaint without a mask. i haven't had to use a doctor (for anything other than a medical certificate for work, or vaccinations for travel) in at least 5 years. i'd be fuckin playing myself if i though i could go on like that for the rest of my life.

[angelofdeath]

aod, the fact that you are trying to argue that our own tax dollars going towards health care is a bad thing is fucking ridiculous. the system won't be totally awesome and make zillions of dollars for the state. who fucking cares. beats the hell out of dumping trillions of dollars a year into a war that will never be won. so you haven't been to a doctor in years. you're in your fucking 20's dude, of course you haven't. to think that you will never need health care, and very fucking expensive healthcare at that, in your lifetime is living in a fantasy world. chances are that you will be diagnosed with cancer in the next 30 years. all of us probably will. i've smoked cigarettes, i like to eat pizza, i drink and i use spraypaint without a mask. i haven't had to use a doctor (for anything other than a medical certificate for work, or vaccinations for travel) in at least 5 years. i'd be fuckin playing myself if i though i could go on like that for the rest of my life.

 

i never said i WONT need a doctor in my life, i said i BUY my own health insurance instead of petitioning the government to rob someone so i can go to the doctor. im totally against any war that is not in self defense, so you can choose another line of debate. im 100% against the welfare-warfare state.

 

it is totally commendable if you give your own private money to someone to use for medical service, but it is not right at all, to go out and rob someone to give to another person. if a person would do this we would call it theft. if the government does it, its graciously called 'income redistribution.'

 

we dont need to socialize healthcare, we need to make it cheaper. the 'crisis' can only be solved by the market. i dont want to see our country collapse like the soviet mecca did. food is much more essential to survival than medical care, and i dont see the do gooders yammering about food insurance. they dont yammer about it, because it is cheap! if medical service was cheap, there would be no crisis.

[russell jones]

 

we dont need to socialize healthcare, we need to make it cheaper. the 'crisis' can only be solved by the market. i dont want to see our country collapse like the soviet mecca did. food is much more essential to survival than medical care, and i dont see the do gooders yammering about food insurance. they dont yammer about it, because it is cheap! if medical service was cheap, there would be no crisis.

 

It's like it's 1963 sometimes with you man. Most of the countries in Europe are at least partly socialist, yet they live on. The Soviet Union is not an example of the failure of Socialism or Communism, it is the failure of state run capitalism, the failure of an oligarchy, and the failure of militarism.

 

I see that you ignored my arguments again, obviously because you have no good answers to counter them.

[viperface]

I hear you can basically hop on a plane to Norway and be supported by the government. Welfare, education, healthcare... thats what happens when you have a few offshore oilrigs and barely any population.

 

welp, thats absolutely true

 

Though people still pay taxes in norway that would probably make you suffocate.

Government controls some parts of the petroleum business and for sure they use money to secure the economy...

However Norway is the only country in scandinavia that I personally know of having lots of oil.

The social system is similiar in all nordic countries,

and for example the student support in Norway is much smaller than in Finland, a country which has no oil rigs at all.

The differences in vastness of social support, welfare, education are minimal between these countries.

As their basic principle, in nordic countries most of these things are "free" for all, taken for granted.

Norway might be oil-rich but not the whole scandinavia, and I doubt the oil really goes to the welfare.

 

Personally I see it like this: The social welfare is made for "extreme cases", and you constantly have to deliver documents that you need it and are trying to apply for work etc.

Theres another safety net that catches you if you work and get fired constantly.

These two (that I've heard of) both try to get you to work no matter what, and you spend alot of time filling the applications.

Basically if you choose to live off the welfare, it's possible but it's a bit of a dishonest struggle, itself requires lots of work and you barely get by.

And as a healthy guy you eventually get kicked out until you're so fucked up with your life you really need it.

But yeah, it's possible

 

The health care is difficult because it's expensive, unpredictable and it doesn't profit.

Still people take it for granted, they pay taxes and consider it heath insurance.

But this is a system that's based on things you cannot predict.

You can't tell when there's going to be a high peak of heart disease and prepare for that.

If there suddently arent any nurses to take care of patients, it's a health care problem.

But you can't blame the system if people want to become graphic designers instead of nurses

etc.

 

Seems like the only reason this discussion is here is because people want to disagree with each other.

All these systems come with a price and it's always at someone's expense.

Speculation if it could still "work" is stupid, it's just a matter of numbers, money, free will and where you spend it and what options&resources you got.

 

It's not like you can switch on social welfare and watch it work.

You have to calculate constantly, make budgets, schematics, shenanigans, backup plans, maintain shit and write lotsa numbers and other important stuff.

 

I'm not saying the scandinavian system could work in california at all. You'd be supporting med care for liberal faggots with aids, making you partially gay. it's different in scandinavia where it's probably been a hard way from WW2 to this point where everyone can just sit back and receive oil money checks from government and do nothing

[CALIgula]

universal health care and education....1 out of 2 aint bad....for now.

[angelofdeath]

"The Soviet Union is not an example of the failure of Socialism or Communism, it is the failure of state run capitalism, the failure of an oligarchy, and the failure of militarism. "

 

:) :)

 

and Russ, i havent been responding to your arguments, because i feel as though we have both had this discussion a couple times before. so i was not responding because i didnt feel the need to go round and round again.

[srebmun]

What I'm hearing from you AOD is that you don't like the idea of UH, SM or whatever it's called because it's a tax burden. And that there exists a growing un-insured population which are forced to choose between health care and a roof over their head is a symptom of the failure of other socialist measures. That's convoluted a bit but let's assume it's true, what should we do to solve this? Doctors put themselves on Ebay? When poor people get sick force them to beg for care. The current situation is f-cked, but that ain't right.

[angelofdeath]

"what should we do to solve this?"

 

get the govt out. as i said above.

the problem is not healthcare, its the high cost. so if you lower the cost, there is no more 'crisis.' just like how there is no 'crisis' over food or drinks.

you have to pay for your burger, you should have to pay for your health care.

 

but lets forget about this for second, because the arguments have already been laid out and the battle lines drawn, and no one is changing any view points over this thread.

why should americans get free healthcare when they smoke, do drugs, eat horrible foods and do so in excessive quanities? why should a tax payer have to pay for some persons lung disease treatment when they brought it all on themselves?

which is why we should get rid of the idea that people are responsible for others on a coercive basis. then people will be free to do what they want.

[WORDISM45]

i dont know abotu america but in australia cigarettes are so heavily taxed that people who smoke pay for their own cancer treatment by giving 7 dollars out of every pack of smokes to the government

[srebmun]

Ok, we get the gov't out. From what I've heard, the insurance industry cites three reasons why they have to raise their prices every year: malpractise cases, poor hospital management, and unpaid medical bills. This solution eliminates one of these things, unpaid medical bills. I would argue that's still only a fraction of the costs born by the insurance companies. In this scenario, there is no more safety net for the elderly, they die earlier. There is no more care for the poor, they die earlier. And suddenly America doesn't look like such the pinnacle of civilization. Bush, up until recently his big solution was to cap malpractise cases at $250K. In this scenario, any kind of civil justice is tossed out the window for all victims, except, maybe, the very least disabled. In both scenarios, only a fraction of the cost is diminished. And neither of these "remedies" stop kids from starting to smoke cigs with nicotine laced, longer smoking cigarettes.

 

I'm simplifying things, yes, but letting people choose to live without healthcare, while still having the cellphone, the cable, the drinking, the KFC, the high-speed, the late-model everything, the hobbys, etc., and then hoping they just up and die without the need to let us know about it, is that really the way to go about this?

[angelofdeath]

why should some one else be responsible for someone on a coercive basis to begin with? money has to be taken from bill to pay for tom's healthcare and it aint right.

 

medical prices are high because of government involvement. food, clothing and electronics are cheap because of low government involvement. it is the nature of a market.

 

"there is no more safety net for the elderly, they die earlier. There is no more care for the poor, they die earlier"

 

this just funny. i'll tell you what makes people die.. is this idea that you have to retire at 65 and that the government will support you. it encourages you to stop work at 65, and be a vegetable.

 

its simple, you have to pay for your food, you have to pay for your health care. if we had a free market medicine approach... cost would be very low compared to what it is now, we would have a variety of services from the cadillac of medical service down to the Kia medical service, and sickness would no longer be subsidized. the moment we get 'free' healthcare, it increases 'sickness.' then you'll have people who are lonely going to the doctor every day to talk to someone, people who get a broken finger nail going to get surgery, etc. its sort of like.... if your job gave you 18 weeks of sick time... dont you think you would get 'sick' an awful lot?

 

lower the price. get rid of the medical industrial complex. prices will fall. people wont die. and liberty will prevail.

[srebmun]

I don't buy the argument that food, clothing, and electronics are inexpensive because of low gov't involvement. I'm pretty sure they are expensive because they are made by people in China.

[angelofdeath]

= less govt involvement. the market tends towards low prices, depending on supply and demand.

[angelofdeath]

the way i see it... if a routine medical procedure costs as much as an average bar tab, most of america will have no problem handling it. and affordable health insurance in case of decapitation will be utilized.

socialized medicine must fail for the same reasons all socialism must fail: it offers no system for rationally allocating resources, and instead promotes overutilization of all resources, ending in bankruptcy.

 

ludwig von mises:

 

"To the intellectual champions of social insurance, and to the politicians and statesmen who enacted it, illness and health appeared as two conditions of the human body sharply separated from each other and always recognizable without difficulty or doubt. Any doctor could diagnose the characteristics of 'health.' 'Illness' was a bodily phenomenon which showed itself independently of human will, and was not susceptible to influence by will. There were people who for some reason or other simulated illness, but a doctor could expose the pretense. Only the healthy person was fully efficient. The efficiency of the sick person was lowered according to the gravity and nature of his illness, and the doctor was able, by means of objectively ascertainable physiological tests, to indicate the degree of the reduction of efficiency.

 

"Now every statement in this theory is false. There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A man's efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. Those who believed that accident and medical insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illnesses and injuries and their consequences were very much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident.

 

"Feeling healthy is quite different from being healthy in the medical sense, and a man's ability to work is largely independent of the physiologically ascertainable and measurable performances of his individual organs. The man who does not want to be healthy is not merely a malingerer. He is a sick person. If the will to be well and efficient is weakened, illness and inability to work is caused. By weakening or completely destroying the will to be well and able to work, social insurance creates illness and inability to work; it produces the habit of complaining – which is in itself a neurosis – and neuroses of other kinds. In short, it is an institution which tends to encourage disease, not to say accidents, and to intensify considerably the physical and psychic results of accidents and illnesses. As a social institution it makes a people sick bodily and mentally or at least helps to multiply, lengthen, and intensify disease."

[russell jones]

the way i see it... if a routine medical procedure costs as much as an average bar tab, most of america will have no problem handling it. and affordable health insurance in case of decapitation will be utilized.

socialized medicine must fail for the same reasons all socialism must fail: it offers no system for rationally allocating resources, and instead promotes overutilization of all resources, ending in bankruptcy.

 

ludwig von mises:

 

"To the intellectual champions of social insurance, and to the politicians and statesmen who enacted it, illness and health appeared as two conditions of the human body sharply separated from each other and always recognizable without difficulty or doubt. Any doctor could diagnose the characteristics of 'health.' 'Illness' was a bodily phenomenon which showed itself independently of human will, and was not susceptible to influence by will. There were people who for some reason or other simulated illness, but a doctor could expose the pretense. Only the healthy person was fully efficient. The efficiency of the sick person was lowered according to the gravity and nature of his illness, and the doctor was able, by means of objectively ascertainable physiological tests, to indicate the degree of the reduction of efficiency.

 

"Now every statement in this theory is false. There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A man's efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. Those who believed that accident and medical insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illnesses and injuries and their consequences were very much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident.

 

"Feeling healthy is quite different from being healthy in the medical sense, and a man's ability to work is largely independent of the physiologically ascertainable and measurable performances of his individual organs. The man who does not want to be healthy is not merely a malingerer. He is a sick person. If the will to be well and efficient is weakened, illness and inability to work is caused. By weakening or completely destroying the will to be well and able to work, social insurance creates illness and inability to work; it produces the habit of complaining – which is in itself a neurosis – and neuroses of other kinds. In short, it is an institution which tends to encourage disease, not to say accidents, and to intensify considerably the physical and psychic results of accidents and illnesses. As a social institution it makes a people sick bodily and mentally or at least helps to multiply, lengthen, and intensify disease."

 

I get it, so sick people are that way because it's their own damn fault. Awesome.

[angelofdeath]

the analogy goes more like what i said above.

if you get 18 weeks of 'free' sick time from work... you will surely get 'sick' an awful lot.

anyone who doesnt see the logic in this has thier head buried.

[russell jones]

It's a total bullshit theory, because if that were the case, by providing free insurance people would be less productive at work, and that is simply not the case.

 

Also, it ignores the fact that a capitalist health system thrives on sickness, because sick people are consumers of health care. A socialist system has the desire to save as much as possible, to reduce costs to the government. Take out a pure profit motive out of drug development and people are encouraged to use cheaper alternative treatments, instead of patenting marginally useful treatments and paying off doctors to use them.

[angelofdeath]

"by providing free insurance people would be less productive at work,"

 

it is true. if you are talking about socialized medical doctors. for instance, the soviet union, had the same technology as us, but they were operating as if they were stuck 10 years behind us. without profit incentive, you get super long waits, poor service, shitty doctors. last i heard the wait for heart surgery was 18 weeks in canada. all they do is give you an aspirin and say we'll get to you when we can. or waiting 12 weeks to get a tooth pulled? for shits sake.

in the soviet union, it was said that if you saw a long line, you didnt ask what it was, you just got in the line and waited. i dont want this to happen to america's healthcare system. its already half way there now.

it is not bad to profit off of sickness. after all grocery stores profit off of peoples hunger and clothing stores profit off of peoples nakedness.

 

a capitalist free health system does thrive on sickness. but you forgot the most important thing, it eliminates mises' theory on sickness. that 'having 28 weeks of sick time, you will awful sick.' people wont be going to the doctor because they are hypocondriacs like they do in socialized medicine. in the free system, people may still be hypocondriacs, but the non paying people who are clogging up the system in the soviet healthcare system will be eliminated paving the way for people who need service to get it.

 

look, if the government gave out free milk, because people need calcium, what do you think would happen? kids would be using it in squirt guns. they also hear that milk is good for the skin... so people would be bathing in it. this is the very nature of government run handouts.

 

" socialist system has the desire to save as much as possible, to reduce costs to the government."

 

to actually say this with a straight face just makes me shit my pants laughing. have you ever seen how hte public sector works? if so, you cannot say this and mean it. in the public sector, FAILURE IS SUCCESS! you must fail to get a raise.it encourages failure, because if you actually succeed at something, and save the government money, you wont get your raise/budget increase for the next year.

that is why the government who works on budgets, has half thier employees not doing a damn thing all day. they dont have to please thier customers at the MVA or DMV because the people cant do anything about it. they must register thier vehicles, and sorry, but you just have to wait through the bureaucratic red tape to get them. this would not happen in the free market, if it did the people would not go there and they would go bankrupt. they dont have to be efficient because they already have thier income, they dont have to work for it. the government gets their money from the point of a gun and they dont have to take part in a voluntary exchange. this is why, if you price a service at 0, there is NO INCENTIVE WHAT SO EVER to be efficient. a doctor will get thier money reguardless of how good they are. sure, the govt could fire them, but the fact is, this is the way the government operates.

 

the argument basically goes back to whether socialism can or cannot work. its not about healthcare. socialized healthcare will fail, the way all socialism must fail. without a pricing system, you cannot properly allocate resources.

[russell jones]

Using the Soviet system as an argument is pretty dumb, considering it's been out of existence for 15 years. Look at France, Germany and Scandinavian countries instead. Their productivity is close to, equals or exceeds the US.

 

I've never used a sick day at my job, even though I get paid ones, so there goes your theory.

[russell jones]

We've already gone over some of this before, but drug companies, hospitals and doctors want everybody to spend as much on health care as possible, this is a fact. Government agencies don't want to spend more on health care than they have to, because their is a limited amount of money to be spent.

 

Let me use an analogy you can understand AOD. You're a mechanic right? What happens if somebody keeps putting off a repair to their car? They turn an inexpensive repair into a nightmare. What if they never get oil changes? Eventually they blow their motor and they might as well toss the car.

 

In our current system, people without health insurance (about 46 million people in the US), don't go to the doctor as soon as a problem crops up. That mole that have could be skin cancer and could be taken care off very inexpensively, but without insurance, they put it off, until the cancer spreads to their organs and its too late. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, they still die.

 

And like I have said before, you ignore my strongest arguments, repeat your mantra "socialism must fail," and move on. That's the problem with having a simple view of the world, your arguments run out of steam and don't apply to the real world.

 

Even Marx recognized that capitalism was a necessity, why can't you recognize the need for some socialism in a modern complex society?

[tscratcher]

reasons why universal healthcare is stupid:

-canada does have universal health care, however the lines are outrageous and the taxes have increased for health care by 67%(usa today)

-creates less insentive to get a job.(even mc donalds gives a healthcare plan)

-fundings for the universal healthcare will be obtained from government funds and tax payers. and those government funds help towards medical achievments such as a cure for cancer, thus now progression in the medical field.

[tscratcher]

no progression*

[angelofdeath]

"I've never used a sick day at my job, even though I get paid ones, so there goes your theory."

 

no, i dont think so in the least. of course there are 'exceptions' to the rule, but to think if you have a crazy amount of sick time that the MAJORITY of people wont use them and 'get sick' an awful lot, you just must not have alot of experience with people.

[angelofdeath]

"We've already gone over some of this before, but drug companies, hospitals and doctors want everybody to spend as much on health care as possible, this is a fact. Government agencies don't want to spend more on health care than they have to, because their is a limited amount of money to be spent. "

 

this is seriously flawed. the government gets crazy crazy amounts of money. there are more ways to get money than taxes. borrowing is one. but the most used is inflation. so, say the legislatures dont give the health ministry any more money the next year, the central bank is lobbied to inflate the currency, rob the public and giving the government a crazy amount of credit created out of thin air.

 

prices are needed to rationally allocate resources and services. it cant be done in a sovietized system. bureaucrats cannot defy the laws of the economy.

prices in a market almost always tend to lower over time. only time they rise is because of supply and demand. with a price as an indicator, it tells people to put more goods on the market. it always happens this way if humanely possible. to say that doctors want people to spend alot on healthcare is true. but the competition factor, always lowers the price often until an unsustainable profit is made. capitalism isnt just about profit, it is a system of profit and loss. people lose money all the time. what about these people? you never hear the media talking about entrepreunuers who lose billions, you only hear about 'greedy' capitalists who make billions.

 

capitalism tends to lower prices. prices routinely fell during our free market hey day of the 19th century. this is because the market finds ways to increase productivity, efficiency and output. how do you make more money in a capitalist system, you charge less than the competition. you dont charge more, which is what you think would happen under a free market medical system.

 

government is the exact opposite. because of the 0 price on a 'free service' you have misallocated resources. these result in shortages always and everywhere. this is what gives you long waits and poor service in canada and other socialized medicinal mecca's. you have to fail in government to get more money. this further makes the system worse.

 

"Let me use an analogy you can understand AOD. You're a mechanic right? What happens if somebody keeps putting off a repair to their car? They turn an inexpensive repair into a nightmare. What if they never get oil changes? Eventually they blow their motor and they might as well toss the car.

 

In our current system, people without health insurance (about 46 million people in the US), don't go to the doctor as soon as a problem crops up. That mole that have could be skin cancer and could be taken care off very inexpensively, but without insurance, they put it off, until the cancer spreads to their organs and its too late. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, they still die. "

 

i totally understand your analogy. like i said the problem is the COST of healthcare, not healthcare itself. if healthcare was cheap, it wouldnt be expensive. it is expensive because of stupid government intervention. if healthcare was cheap through a free market, the person with the mole, could easily have it lopped off and pay cash, by just skipping going to the bar a few nights a week.

 

the problem is, as with car repairs, even rich people dont fix thier cars before things break. it is just the nature of humans. even if some poor folk would rather fix thier car before something breaks, many simply have the mind set that if 'it aint broke, dont fix it.'

but i do see your analogy, but it still doesnt change the fact, that people shouldnt be responsible for others on a coercive basis.

 

my arguments fall back to the basics and generalities, because people lose sight of the big picture, such as, socialized ANYTHING will fail.

 

but i'll tell you what... how about a real compromise on the issue. besides the logistics of the argument, why not just make the system voluntary. tell you what, its not a bad system, but i just dont want to be a part of it. i want to go to free market doctors and not have money stolen from me to pay for a soviet system of medicine. how about you just let me opt out? you do your thing, and i'll do my thing.

if you say no, you favor coercion over voluntary cooperation. i'll choose voluntary exchange anyday. i dont want someone telling me what to do and how to do it.

[russell jones]

The laws of supply and demand no longer apply in today's information economy. Ask Bill Gates.

[russell jones]

The free market isn't free from coercion, and I'm not talking about advertisements, I'm talking about monopolies. You should know better about monopolies since you live in Wal Mart land.

 

The basic fact that you and no free market economist can deny is that people are healthier in countries with socialized medicine. That cannot be denied. This is why theoretical politics never works, because it ignores the specifics of each situation. I am neither a socialist or a capitalist, nor am I a conservative or a liberal, I just look at each situation and try to decide what is best.

 

And think about this, the only reason that I am able to have health insurance at all is because of regulations that require insurance companies to cover me regardless of my preexisting condition. Without those laws, I would be up shits creek, just like all the people with heart disease, diabetes, etc. Explain that?

 

Even though you have denied this before with your untenable "live off the land" theory, capitalism is in no way voluntary. Either you become a part of the money system or you are destitute. That is not a choice, no matter how argue it.

 

Nonetheless, I would be willing to consider your idea of cheap healthcare, which is intriguing, but you have to provide more than your standard free market brings down costs thing, since the US has the closest thing to free market in the industrialized countries, yet has by far the most expensive healthcare. What are the specifics? How can costs be brought down despite the expense of drug development and medical training? If you don't know the specifics perhaps you can point me to someone who has them.

 

By the way, sometimes with libertarians, I get the feeling that all of there talk about "freedom," is more about not trusting in people as a whole. Also, I think most libertarians underestimate how much their lives depend on other people. No one makes it through this world alone, but the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" persists.

 

Your signature quote is interesting as well to me, because it seems to imply that economic freedom is freedom. It isn't, because in a "free" market system, we are all slaves to the money.

[angelofdeath]

"I'm talking about monopolies"

 

monopolies do not exist in the free market. they only exist with government priviledge. predatory pricing is a myth.

 

capitalism is totally voluntary. think about it... you cannot advocate a capitalist society in a socialized country, but you can advocate socialism in a capitalist society. it all depends on the voluntary nature of it. socialism can be voluntary, but generally, all the socialists are statist coercive ones.

 

which leads me to... why you didnt take up my offer. you can live with socialized medicine, if you allow me to live without it and you dont take my money to pay for it.

 

i believe in people. of course peoples lives depend on others, which is what a market is. voluntary cooperation. the market economy is how people cooperate. for instance, in a single price is the cumulated knowledge and choice of millions of people.

 

no, you are only a slave to money if you choose to be. if there is not economic freedom and private property, then there is no freedom at all. maybe i just think freedom means freedom, and you think freedom is living off of other peoples stolen money, i dont know.

[russell jones]

We already had this discussion about slavery to money. We figured out that you live in la la land and the rest of us live in reality, where you need money to live. Therefore we are slaves and we are not free. Like I said, to you, economic freedom is freedom, to me, freedom is freedom, and it almost by definition is an impossibility in any society. Total freedom is anarchy, which as you said before, you don't believe in, so the "freedom" that you live in, has limits, just like our society has taxes. Your limits are simply different than others. For instance, I believe that people from other countries should be able to come in here in unlimited numbers, as they had in the 19th century and early 20th (although immigration from Japan was limited in 1880). A good percentage of the people who are here in America now, including my family, and most likely yours, came to America in a time when there were no limits on immigration. Limits on immigration generally go against liberal economics, as you probably already know. So, like I said, you don't truly believe in freedom.

 

I have no problem with you living on your own without socialized medicine. A majority of people may not go for it though, considering the propaganda machine in this country against it all.

 

BTW, you seemed to imply in your previous post that Standard Oil was a monopoly in the free market.

 

Also, you missed the most important part of my message, where can I find more specifics about this cheap medical care idea? Like I said, if you can convince me, I am totally open to the idea. I have seen that the free market has worked quite well in some sectors, especially technology. But all of the evidence I have seen shows that socialized medicine works better than free market medicine. Prove me wrong.

[angelofdeath]

" economic freedom is freedom, to me, freedom is freedom, and it almost by definition is an impossibility in any society. "

 

freedom is freedom. economic freedom is one tenant of freedom. how is a socialized medical system 'freedom?' how is a system bent on STEALING peoples money, against thier will, to pay for someone elses health insurance, freedom? it isnt. you cannot be free, and be told how to spend your money.

im not for restricted immigration, but i am for national border protection. you just have to sign the guestbook when you enter the country.

 

the only 'evidence' i see about how great socialized medicine is, is the long waits for heart surgery and doctors giving people bandaids and aspirin while they wait months for that great service.

the 'evidence' for the free market medicine system, is the free market itself and the US's history before the great society programs, back when medicine was cheap and no one needed 'health insurance' let alone the state to pay for it.

 

if i implied that standard oil was a monopoly, i didnt mean too. i meant to imply that standard oil was considered a monopoly by everyone in the politically correct arena

[WORDISM45]

SO AOD what would your take on it be if a family had a child with a serious disease that needed constant care and medical attention, the family couldn't afford the medical attention as they were living off one parents wage and the other was a constant carer for the child? and this isn't some easy fix illness that in the 'free market' would be really cheap to fix because of lower prices, it's a serious chronic illness. what's the solution?