Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-05-25 06:07:20
Benzin
Member
+576|6303
Obama (and Clinton) both want to put these government health care systems in that would regulate how Americans are treated. TBH, the various State governments can barely manage their own welfare programs, how the hell do we expect the Federal government to effectively manage a nationwide health care system? Sure, in countries where the population and sociological diversity is much less than the USA it's feasible, but the USA is much too diverse.

Clinton's program is mandatory, whereas Obama's is not, which is one redeeming quality ... but nonetheless ...
2008-05-25 06:15:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Regulate? You'd still be free to buy private health insurance right?
Doesn't sound like a 'stripping constitutional rights' crisis to me.

Sociological diversity? In other words the US wants to keep the rich rich and the poor poor?
Are you really saying the US can spend a trillion dollars on a foreign war but can't provide basic healthcare for its own citizens?
Communism is crap, but so is unfettered capitalism.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-25 06:21:13)

Fuck Israel
2008-05-25 06:19:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Well, to be fair, who we pick as president has a huge effect on other countries like Australia.
bahh.. throw them a few f-22's.. they'll be aight.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-25 06:29:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:

Regulate? You'd still be free to buy private health insurance right?
Doesn't sound like a 'stripping constitutional rights' crisis to me.

Sociological diversity? In other words the US wants to keep the rich rich and the poor poor?
Are you really saying the US can spend a trillion dollars on a foreign war but can't provide for its own citizens?
Communism is crap, but so is unfettered capitalism.
Some would rather struggle than live under the "every man's a servant" ideology. Socialism in America would be nothing like socialism in a European country. The scale would be the same as if the entire EU was administering everything under a blanket plan. Moderation with everything is the key. This is why I support states rights. It increases the odds of government accountability. For some reason people equate this with not giving a crap about the poor.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-05-25 07:36:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Nuh uh. That never happened. bushliedpeopledied.
Bush did lie, people have died, what's your point?

You should have read on a bit.
'You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty.'
I was referring to this:

Notable that he (Obama) said Saddam " has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."
Obama couldn't have possibly said that, since according to you, all that was just made up stuff so that Bush could start a war to make his oil company buddies richer. But since Obama said it, he must be in on the conspiracy too and lying as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-25 07:36:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
No european struggles under 'every man's a servant' ideology.
We pay more taxes, we get more in return. The gap between rich and poor is narrower.
Its social democracy, not communism.
Fuck Israel
2008-05-25 08:06:57
paul386
Member
+22|6550

Dilbert_X wrote:

I cannot vote for him because he wants to increase the scope and power of the federal government (as President Bush has done for the past 8 years). He wants to strip my Constitutional Rights and replace it with a "nanny" state. I cannot vote for someone who so blatantly ignores the ideas of liberalism that this country was founded on.
For example?

appreciate the interest non-americans take in our elections, but does anyone else think it's a bit  inappropriate for them to blatantly tell americans who we should vote for ?
Gee whiz, its not like I invaded your country and installed a puppet govt more to my liking.
Things like a "Universal Healthcare" is a clear a blatant violation of my personal freedoms, responsibilities, and the limit placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Everyone has a moral responsibility to help those in need, and in most cases they do. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and churches are perfectly capable of caring for our needy. The problem is, as the government handles more and more of the welfare, people come to expect it as the government's job, and stop donating to local private charities. Afterall, the government is taking more than 40% of your money, why should you give any more away?

Forcibly taking my money from me (via taxes) and giving to another person (welfare) is a violation of my rights. People tend to have a really easy time spending other people's money.

People are fired from companies for using the companies resources for personal gain. This should be the case for government as well. It may be your personal ambition to rid the nation of poor people, but don't use political power to steel the money from me to do it.
2008-05-25 09:06:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Regulate? You'd still be free to buy private health insurance right?
Doesn't sound like a 'stripping constitutional rights' crisis to me.

Sociological diversity? In other words the US wants to keep the rich rich and the poor poor?
Are you really saying the US can spend a trillion dollars on a foreign war but can't provide for its own citizens?
Communism is crap, but so is unfettered capitalism.
Some would rather struggle than live under the "every man's a servant" ideology. Socialism in America would be nothing like socialism in a European country. The scale would be the same as if the entire EU was administering everything under a blanket plan. Moderation with everything is the key. This is why I support states rights. It increases the odds of government accountability. For some reason people equate this with not giving a crap about the poor.
Considering how insurance agencies basically run our healthcare system, I'd rather have the government be the insurer.  Why?  Because the only group more capable of raping us than the government are corporations.

Socialized healthcare works for France, and it could also work for us.
2008-05-25 09:12:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

paul386 wrote:

Things like a "Universal Healthcare" is a clear a blatant violation of my personal freedoms, responsibilities, and the limit placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Everyone has a moral responsibility to help those in need, and in most cases they do. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and churches are perfectly capable of caring for our needy. The problem is, as the government handles more and more of the welfare, people come to expect it as the government's job, and stop donating to local private charities. Afterall, the government is taking more than 40% of your money, why should you give any more away?
Observe the state of poverty in America before the Great Depression.  If you really want to return to those days, you're either rich or just crazy.

paul386 wrote:

Forcibly taking my money from me (via taxes) and giving to another person (welfare) is a violation of my rights. People tend to have a really easy time spending other people's money.
Really?  Are you against corporate welfare, foreign aid, and war?  If you are, then you're consistent in that belief.

paul386 wrote:

People are fired from companies for using the companies resources for personal gain. This should be the case for government as well. It may be your personal ambition to rid the nation of poor people, but don't use political power to steel the money from me to do it.
When it comes to the corporate world, there are various forms of legal embezzlement, like when two companies merge and retirement plans are liquidated as a result.

When it comes to the government, embezzlement occurs, but politicians are a lot more liable to you or me than CEOs are.
2008-05-25 09:47:07
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london

Dilbert_X wrote:

No european struggles under 'every man's a servant' ideology.
We pay more taxes, we get more in return. The gap between rich and poor is narrower.
Its social democracy, not communism.
are you european or australian?
2008-05-25 09:50:08
paul386
Member
+22|6550

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Things like a "Universal Healthcare" is a clear a blatant violation of my personal freedoms, responsibilities, and the limit placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Everyone has a moral responsibility to help those in need, and in most cases they do. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and churches are perfectly capable of caring for our needy. The problem is, as the government handles more and more of the welfare, people come to expect it as the government's job, and stop donating to local private charities. Afterall, the government is taking more than 40% of your money, why should you give any more away?
Observe the state of poverty in America before the Great Depression.  If you really want to return to those days, you're either rich or just crazy.

paul386 wrote:

Forcibly taking my money from me (via taxes) and giving to another person (welfare) is a violation of my rights. People tend to have a really easy time spending other people's money.
Really?  Are you against corporate welfare, foreign aid, and war?  If you are, then you're consistent in that belief.

paul386 wrote:

People are fired from companies for using the companies resources for personal gain. This should be the case for government as well. It may be your personal ambition to rid the nation of poor people, but don't use political power to steel the money from me to do it.
When it comes to the corporate world, there are various forms of legal embezzlement, like when two companies merge and retirement plans are liquidated as a result.

When it comes to the government, embezzlement occurs, but politicians are a lot more liable to you or me than CEOs are.
The great depression was a product of government programs that went bad. They tried to fix it with even bigger government programs. Lucky for them WWII got us out of it.

I am against the corporation in general, only a government can turn a bunch of document into a citizen. And yes, I am against (public) foreign aid and non-provoked wars (like Iraq).

Of course I have no problem with private contributions to those in need, which there are plenty of private non-profit groups to collect.

"Universal Healthcare" doesn't work anywhere. It like saying, because not everyone can afford a car, the government is going to take your money and give one to everyone, it just the car they give you is a geo metro.

The current government regulated and licensed health care system is worse in a different way. It is like saying, because you cannot afford a Cadillac, you don't get a car at all.

I support a system where the rich and buy their Cadillac and the poor can buy their geo metro. Everyone gets a car. This can be accomplished by removing the requirement to have a license to practice medicine.
2008-05-25 09:53:43
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london

paul386 wrote:

This can be accomplished by removing the requirement to have a license to practice medicine.
I was taking you seriously till I read this.  LOL
2008-05-25 09:58:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

paul386 wrote:

The great depression was a product of government programs that went bad. They tried to fix it with even bigger government programs. Lucky for them WWII got us out of it.
There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?

paul386 wrote:

I am against the corporation in general, only a government can turn a bunch of document into a citizen. And yes, I am against (public) foreign aid and non-provoked wars (like Iraq).

Of course I have no problem with private contributions to those in need, which there are plenty of private non-profit groups to collect.
Good, you're consistent then, and I'm guessing your sn is a reference to Ron Paul, correct?

paul386 wrote:

"Universal Healthcare" doesn't work anywhere. It like saying, because not everyone can afford a car, the government is going to take your money and give one to everyone, it just the car they give you is a geo metro.

The current government regulated and licensed health care system is worse in a different way. It is like saying, because you cannot afford a Cadillac, you don't get a car at all.

I support a system where the rich and buy their Cadillac and the poor can buy their geo metro. Everyone gets a car. This can be accomplished by removing the requirement to have a license to practice medicine.
If I'm not mistaken, the AMA is completely private.  They're the ones who issue licenses, right?...
2008-05-25 10:24:57
paul386
Member
+22|6550

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

The great depression was a product of government programs that went bad. They tried to fix it with even bigger government programs. Lucky for them WWII got us out of it.
There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?

paul386 wrote:

I am against the corporation in general, only a government can turn a bunch of document into a citizen. And yes, I am against (public) foreign aid and non-provoked wars (like Iraq).

Of course I have no problem with private contributions to those in need, which there are plenty of private non-profit groups to collect.
Good, you're consistent then, and I'm guessing your sn is a reference to Ron Paul, correct?

paul386 wrote:

"Universal Healthcare" doesn't work anywhere. It like saying, because not everyone can afford a car, the government is going to take your money and give one to everyone, it just the car they give you is a geo metro.

The current government regulated and licensed health care system is worse in a different way. It is like saying, because you cannot afford a Cadillac, you don't get a car at all.

I support a system where the rich and buy their Cadillac and the poor can buy their geo metro. Everyone gets a car. This can be accomplished by removing the requirement to have a license to practice medicine.
If I'm not mistaken, the AMA is completely private.  They're the ones who issue licenses, right?...
My name is paul, which is where my sn comes from. But yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter.

The AMA is a private organization, but achieves superficial powers because all states require that the you have an AMA license to practice medicine. The AMA is a group who tries to limit the number of doctors on the market to keep the salaries high. Without the law requiring AMA licensing the quality of medicine would be unaffected, but the cost would drop significantly because there would be a lot more doctors.

Of course one could elect to pay the premium and visit an AMA approved doctor. But why not also offer an individual the choose to visit an un-licensed doctor if that is what their budget can afford.

It is like saying if you cannot afford a Cadillac, you should not be able to buy a car. It is stupid.

In regards to the Great Depression:

The "bad lending practices" were a result of the Federal Reserve issuing banks loans a artificially low interest rates. The same thing that has sparked the current recession. The Federal Reserve is at the heart of almost all economic issues since its conception. Todays dollar is worth less than $.04 of what the dollar was worth when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
2008-05-25 10:32:43
paul386
Member
+22|6550

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

The great depression was a product of government programs that went bad. They tried to fix it with even bigger government programs. Lucky for them WWII got us out of it.
There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?
Interesting note to the cause of the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Milton Friedman is one of the leading economist of the 20th century and an advocate of limited government and free enterprise.
2008-05-25 10:33:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

paul386 wrote:

My name is paul, which is where my sn comes from. But yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter.

The AMA is a private organization, but achieves superficial powers because all states require that the you have an AMA license to practice medicine. The AMA is a group who tries to limit the number of doctors on the market to keep the salaries high. Without the law requiring AMA licensing the quality of medicine would be unaffected, but the cost would drop significantly because there would be a lot more doctors.

Of course one could elect to pay the premium and visit an AMA approved doctor. But why not also offer an individual the choose to visit an un-licensed doctor if that is what their budget can afford.

It is like saying if you cannot afford a Cadillac, you should not be able to buy a car. It is stupid.
Well, there are other organizations that provide licenses, like the AOA.  However, I would agree that licensing is part of the problem.  To me, however, I would prefer that licensing be socialized, so that anyone with the ability could get a license, instead of setting it up so that only certain people can afford medical school.

paul386 wrote:

In regards to the Great Depression:

The "bad lending practices" were a result of the Federal Reserve issuing banks loans a artificially low interest rates. The same thing that has sparked the current recession. The Federal Reserve is at the heart of almost all economic issues since its conception. Todays dollar is worth less than $.04 of what the dollar was worth when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
Part of that was due to buying stocks on margin, however, which involved banks loaning out all the money they had (or virtually all of it).  Without reserve requirements in place, banks essentially made it impossible for people to withdraw their funds when they needed to as the stock market fell.  To me, this is a failure of not enough regulation, not too much.

After reserve requirements were put into place, things changed mostly for the better.  There are other issues I take with the Fed Reserve, however, like the bailout of Bear Stearns.  So, I definitely wouldn't mind revising the system some.  I'm just not ready to ditch it altogether.
2008-05-25 10:35:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

paul386 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

The great depression was a product of government programs that went bad. They tried to fix it with even bigger government programs. Lucky for them WWII got us out of it.
There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?
Interesting note to the cause of the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Milton Friedman is one of the leading economist of the 20th century and an advocate of limited government and free enterprise.
I find it hard to trust the words of a man who bailed out Bear Stearns so that J.P. Morgan could buy it up.
2008-05-25 11:10:39
paul386
Member
+22|6550

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?
Interesting note to the cause of the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Milton Friedman is one of the leading economist of the 20th century and an advocate of limited government and free enterprise.
I find it hard to trust the words of a man who bailed out Bear Stearns so that J.P. Morgan could buy it up.
I would trust him either, in fact I despise the man. However, the important part was him admitting government responsibility for the great depression.

Some I see you doing is suggesting socialization here and there. Well why not everywhere? It is better to discuss on a more philosophical level then on a specific matter. You are more likely to make a poor decision when looking at the specifics of a matter than the overall picture.

Why do you want socialized licensing so bad? The whole point of licensing is not to regulate quality but to regulate quantity. In a world where medical licenses are not required, doctors and medical groups would receive reputations for their quality, much as some car manufacturers are regarded for their quality while others are not. You do not need government to do this.
2008-05-25 12:06:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

paul386 wrote:

I would trust him either, in fact I despise the man. However, the important part was him admitting government responsibility for the great depression.

Some I see you doing is suggesting socialization here and there. Well why not everywhere? It is better to discuss on a more philosophical level then on a specific matter. You are more likely to make a poor decision when looking at the specifics of a matter than the overall picture.

Why do you want socialized licensing so bad? The whole point of licensing is not to regulate quality but to regulate quantity. In a world where medical licenses are not required, doctors and medical groups would receive reputations for their quality, much as some car manufacturers are regarded for their quality while others are not. You do not need government to do this.
I would have to disagree completely.  Pure capitalism and pure socialism both fail.  The most successful countries in the world are a combination of socialism and capitalism, so this is why I support socializing medicine but privatizing Social Security.  I think socialization only tends to work with necessities like healthcare or with things like telecommunications like internet service.

Most other industries should be completely private.  I just see medicine differently, because of the abuses of insurance companies.

When it comes to doctors, a certain amount of standardization is needed, because people's lives are at stake.
2008-05-25 17:05:15
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6827

paul386 wrote:

Why do you want socialized licensing so bad? The whole point of licensing is not to regulate quality but to regulate quantity. In a world where medical licenses are not required, doctors and medical groups would receive reputations for their quality, much as some car manufacturers are regarded for their quality while others are not. You do not need government to do this.
I beg to disagree.

If you ever read the papers, licensed doctors have been known to pull some shady stuff. I don't even want to think of what would happen it anyone with an idea could practice medicine. Going to an unlicensed doctor may be cheaper, but what happens when a sea of sub-poverty families suddenly start dropping off the way side by poor medicine or, even worse, con men. Then the licensed docs will be have to pick up the slack, and we are back where we started, or worse. As far as the car metaphor, people still by cheap cars. However, Honda isn't forced to take care of Ford owners when their car blows a tranny.

And as for the quantity, not quality, argument, considering how many professions are regulated, I highly doubt that is the driving force of the governments licensing programs. Everything from Civil Engineers to Hair stylists are regulated to make sure they are qualified and able to do their jobs adequately. Otherwise, people get hurt. Is it sometimes overkill? Yes, but thats not really the point.

Is the government really worried about a sudden influx of hair stylists? I really doubt it.
2008-05-26 01:18:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Obama couldn't have possibly said that, since according to you, all that was just made up stuff so that Bush could start a war to make his oil company buddies richer. But since Obama said it, he must be in on the conspiracy too and lying as well.
Obama was going on the basis of the intel provided by Bush.
Saddam did develop WMD, covet nuclear weapons etc, by the time of the invasion he had nothing thanks to sanctions and the inspections.
Obama was pressing for the inspections to continue, which at the time and with the benefit of hindsight was the right thing to do.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-26 01:19:47)

Fuck Israel
2008-05-26 02:25:51
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX

GSTQ wrote:

are you european or australian?
Both, currently in Australia.
Fuck Israel
2008-05-26 04:51:13
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6641|Oregon
Obama has great charisma and promising swagger, but I'm still completely unconvinced that he'll be able to do half of what he says.
2008-05-26 11:51:25
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6662|CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


There weren't a whole lot of government programs that existed before the Great Depression.  For example, welfare was basically nonexistent.  Now, all that I know of the stock market crash and the depression points to bad lending practices by banking.  How was the depression the fault of government programs?
Interesting note to the cause of the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Milton Friedman is one of the leading economist of the 20th century and an advocate of limited government and free enterprise.
I find it hard to trust the words of a man who bailed out Bear Stearns so that J.P. Morgan could buy it up.
You should actually read Milton Friedman's 'Free to Choose' and also Thomas Sowell's 'Basic Economics' and 'Economic Facts and Fallacies'.  Actualy the latter is extremely topical since he has chapters devoted to price controls and socialized medical care and how they are ridiculous from a economic perspective but make for great 'vote-getting' speeches.  All three books are extremely accessible and easy to grasp.

the basic tenet is that with socialized medical care, everyone gets a piece of the pie in terms of care.  this sounds great!  but...since everyone is getting care and nobody did anything to take care of the limited resources we have with regards to the care givers, we have longer lines, reduced quality of care, etc.  What we need to do is increase the # of doctors.  Also, we need to reduce the frivolous lawsuits (in terms of $ limits) so that doctors don't have to pay as much insurance premiums.  Unless we add more doctors (supply) when the demand goes up (more clients), we will have an even worse crisis than it is now.

Sowell goes on further to point out that rent controls is also bad.  rent control sounds great for those on fixed incomes.  they get to live in places they would not be able to afford if priced at market rates.  however, the landlord has no vested interest in keeping the property up so after a bunch of years, the property turns to shit.  the landlords would rather put their money in places that turn a profit.  they don't get profit in rent controlled areas because these are fixed prices - forever or for a very very long time.  hence, in these areas, the money actually goes into commercial properties because that's where the price controls aren't. so, with rent controls, eventually you end up with slum-like living conditions but there's a starbucks on every corner making bank.

Read Sowell online - he has a column.  he's a conservative economist - that's a fact, but he frames his arguments in terms of economic principles so he's trying to be apolitical.
2008-05-26 15:18:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

You should actually read Milton Friedman's 'Free to Choose' and also Thomas Sowell's 'Basic Economics' and 'Economic Facts and Fallacies'.  Actualy the latter is extremely topical since he has chapters devoted to price controls and socialized medical care and how they are ridiculous from a economic perspective but make for great 'vote-getting' speeches.  All three books are extremely accessible and easy to grasp.
I prefer John Maynard Keynes myself.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

the basic tenet is that with socialized medical care, everyone gets a piece of the pie in terms of care.  this sounds great!  but...since everyone is getting care and nobody did anything to take care of the limited resources we have with regards to the care givers, we have longer lines, reduced quality of care, etc.  What we need to do is increase the # of doctors.  Also, we need to reduce the frivolous lawsuits (in terms of $ limits) so that doctors don't have to pay as much insurance premiums.  Unless we add more doctors (supply) when the demand goes up (more clients), we will have an even worse crisis than it is now.
Compare America's system to France's.  You'll see why I prefer socialized medicine over privatized.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Sowell goes on further to point out that rent controls is also bad.  rent control sounds great for those on fixed incomes.  they get to live in places they would not be able to afford if priced at market rates.  however, the landlord has no vested interest in keeping the property up so after a bunch of years, the property turns to shit.  the landlords would rather put their money in places that turn a profit.  they don't get profit in rent controlled areas because these are fixed prices - forever or for a very very long time.  hence, in these areas, the money actually goes into commercial properties because that's where the price controls aren't. so, with rent controls, eventually you end up with slum-like living conditions but there's a starbucks on every corner making bank.

Read Sowell online - he has a column.  he's a conservative economist - that's a fact, but he frames his arguments in terms of economic principles so he's trying to be apolitical.
I'm not a fan of price controls in anything other than healthcare, but I see healthcare as far too much of a necessity to leave up to the market.  Everything else can pretty much go the private way though.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard