Presidential Election 2016

2016-05-09 06:35:21

#1101

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
But it is cheaper.
At what cost? You've forced down doctor pay, so how many potentially awesome doctors were turned off from the profession?
yeah sooooooooooo many people got turned off by medicine aye. People don't become doctors for the money and pay, they do it for the prestige, making their family happy, want to help people etc. If you want a profession you make money, go investment banking, engineering, management consulting etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten … 237584.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/05/no- … doughnuts/

Or in America, you become a doctor and make $500,000 as a podatrist while working 4 days a week.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-09 06:43:24

#1102

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3939

Sounds like we need to make more free medical schools. And maybe make it easier for doctors to immigrate.

2016-05-09 06:46:41

#1103

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
or you force the staff to work for peanuts

Where do you get this? The same place lowing got his 'information'?
No-one is 'forced to work for peanuts' any more than you were strong-armed into signing your life over to the govt for poverty pay.

Its a free market, if people don't like their pay they can go work for a private company instead of the govt, pick a different career or emigrate to another country. They don't have to choose to work for the govt if they don't want to.

You know, freedom?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-05-09 06:49:57)

Fuck Israel

2016-05-09 06:49:22

#1104

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
At what cost? You've forced down doctor pay, so how many potentially awesome doctors were turned off from the profession?

If they were only in it for the money, and earning well above average pay isn't good enough for them chances are they were never going to "awesome Doctors" at all, just grubbing leeches.

Fuck Israel

2016-05-09 08:12:06

#1105

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
At what cost? You've forced down doctor pay, so how many potentially awesome doctors were turned off from the profession?
If they were only in it for the money, and earning well above average pay isn't good enough for them chances are they were never going to "awesome Doctors" at all, just grubbing leeches.

Greed and quality of work are not mutually exclusive.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-09 09:39:39

#1106

uziq: Member; +493|3671

in which jay blusters his way through a miasmatic fog of error and presupposition to arrive back at his own fears and projections.

2016-05-09 09:41:03

#1107

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

uziq wrote:
in which jay blusters his way through a miasmatic fog of error and presupposition to arrive back at his own fears and projections.

Ok, so present an alternative.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-09 10:00:35

#1108

uziq: Member; +493|3671

your understanding of the NHS is laughably wrong and incompetent.

2016-05-09 10:03:59

#1109

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

uziq wrote:
your understanding of the NHS is laughably wrong and incompetent.

So please enlighten me. You've offered less than zero so far.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-09 15:40:25

#1110

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6935

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Jay wrote:

At what cost? You've forced down doctor pay, so how many potentially awesome doctors were turned off from the profession?
yeah sooooooooooo many people got turned off by medicine aye. People don't become doctors for the money and pay, they do it for the prestige, making their family happy, want to help people etc. If you want a profession you make money, go investment banking, engineering, management consulting etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten … 237584.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/05/no- … doughnuts/
Or in America, you become a doctor and make $500,000 as a podatrist while working 4 days a week.

You realize a lot of that money goes into insurance right?

Doctors can choose to do the same in aussieland, it's not like they're barred from private practice. There are private hospitals and insurance on top of a public system ya know.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2016-05-10 06:00:27

#1111

uziq: Member; +493|3671

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
your understanding of the NHS is laughably wrong and incompetent.
So please enlighten me. You've offered less than zero so far.

as have you. I can't even be bothered when a basic understanding of the UK health system (like many socialised health systems in Europe) is one wiki link away. instead you pontificate because you like sounding out whatever dumb theory you've read and hearing it pealing in your own tin tongue.

Last edited by uziq (2016-05-10 06:00:51)

2016-05-10 06:17:52

#1112

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
At what cost? You've forced down doctor pay, so how many potentially awesome doctors were turned off from the profession?
If they were only in it for the money, and earning well above average pay isn't good enough for them chances are they were never going to "awesome Doctors" at all, just grubbing leeches.
Greed and quality of work are not mutually exclusive.

You know what I think is ridiculous? That America maintains a socialised military and forces people to work for peanuts. I bet many people who would have made awesome soldiers have been put off by the low wages, fixed by the govt.
That and having a socialised military means that defence contractors can't make as much money as they could if there were only private armies. That's unconstitutional and I think they would have a good case if they sued the govt in the supreme court.

Honestly, you have barely a childs understanding of how the world functions, and you're a hypocrite to boot.

I hope Trump becomes President so you can see for yourself what a retarded ass-clown a real Libertarian looks like, and how 'Free Market Libertarianism' works in practice.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-05-10 06:24:38)

Fuck Israel

2016-05-10 06:38:37

#1113

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

If they were only in it for the money, and earning well above average pay isn't good enough for them chances are they were never going to "awesome Doctors" at all, just grubbing leeches.
Greed and quality of work are not mutually exclusive.
You know what I think is ridiculous? That America maintains a socialised military and forces people to work for peanuts. I bet many people who would have made awesome soldiers have been put off by the low wages, fixed by the govt.
That and having a socialised military means that defence contractors can't make as much money as they could if there were only private armies. That's unconstitutional and I think they would have a good case if they sued the govt in the supreme court.

Honestly, you have barely a childs understanding of how the world functions, and you're a hypocrite to boot.

I hope Trump becomes President so you can see for yourself what a retarded ass-clown a real Libertarian looks like, and how 'Free Market Libertarianism' works in practice.

Trump isn't in any way remotely libertarian.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-10 06:47:40

#1114

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
your understanding of the NHS is laughably wrong and incompetent.
So please enlighten me. You've offered less than zero so far.
as have you. I can't even be bothered when a basic understanding of the UK health system (like many socialised health systems in Europe) is one wiki link away. instead you pontificate because you like sounding out whatever dumb theory you've read and hearing it pealing in your own tin tongue.

Ok, so you can't.

I don't have a problem with your NHS. If you like it, that's cool. The only real difference between your system and mine is that your premiums are progressively priced based on income via taxes whereas ours are flat, except for the very poor who receive free or subsidized plans. At this point the only people who don't have health insurance are people who don't want it.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-10 07:26:27

#1115

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Greed and quality of work are not mutually exclusive.
You know what I think is ridiculous? That America maintains a socialised military and forces people to work for peanuts. I bet many people who would have made awesome soldiers have been put off by the low wages, fixed by the govt.
That and having a socialised military means that defence contractors can't make as much money as they could if there were only private armies. That's unconstitutional and I think they would have a good case if they sued the govt in the supreme court.

Honestly, you have barely a childs understanding of how the world functions, and you're a hypocrite to boot.

I hope Trump becomes President so you can see for yourself what a retarded ass-clown a real Libertarian looks like, and how 'Free Market Libertarianism' works in practice.
Trump isn't in any way remotely libertarian.

Nor are you.

Actually he is, he wants what he wants for himself and for someone else to bear the cost.
That's what 'Libertarians' really are.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-05-10 07:27:37)

Fuck Israel

2016-05-10 07:31:45

#1116

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
I don't have a problem with your NHS. If you like it, that's cool. The only real difference between your system and mine is that your premiums are progressively priced based on income via taxes whereas ours are flat, except for the very poor who receive free or subsidized plans. At this point the only people who don't have health insurance are people who don't want it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-th … 87642.html

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

Dat insurance.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-05-10 07:32:52)

Fuck Israel

2016-05-10 07:42:31

#1117

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3939

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
I don't have a problem with your NHS. If you like it, that's cool. The only real difference between your system and mine is that your premiums are progressively priced based on income via taxes whereas ours are flat, except for the very poor who receive free or subsidized plans. At this point the only people who don't have health insurance are people who don't want it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-th … 87642.html
A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

Dat insurance.

You don't get it. The purchasing power of the upper class needs to be protected at all cost.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-05-10 07:47:47)

2016-05-10 07:54:00

#1118

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6900|Disaster Free Zone

The real difference is the UK Government can cover all its population for £2069 per person or ~6.5% GDP. With an Additional £500 per capita spent on private health care.
The US Government spends about $5000 per person (~9% GDP) to cover about 30% of the population with an additional $5000 per capita being spent on private health care.

And for having 1.5times the tax burden and an having to foot your own bill 70% of the time you still get no better result.

2016-05-10 08:15:18

#1119

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6325|eXtreme to the maX

DrunkFace wrote:
The real difference is the UK Government can cover all its population for £2069 per person or ~6.5% GDP. With an Additional £500 per capita spent on private health care.
The US Government spends about $5000 per person (~9% GDP) to cover about 30% of the population with an additional $5000 per capita being spent on private health care.

And for having 1.5times the tax burden and an having to foot your own bill 70% of the time you still get no better result.

You'll be saying a free market produces shit outcomes next.

Fuck Israel

2016-05-10 08:50:26

#1120

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
I don't have a problem with your NHS. If you like it, that's cool. The only real difference between your system and mine is that your premiums are progressively priced based on income via taxes whereas ours are flat, except for the very poor who receive free or subsidized plans. At this point the only people who don't have health insurance are people who don't want it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-th … 87642.html
A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

Dat insurance.

From 2007.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-10 08:51:59

#1121

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:
The real difference is the UK Government can cover all its population for £2069 per person or ~6.5% GDP. With an Additional £500 per capita spent on private health care.
The US Government spends about $5000 per person (~9% GDP) to cover about 30% of the population with an additional $5000 per capita being spent on private health care.

And for having 1.5times the tax burden and an having to foot your own bill 70% of the time you still get no better result.

The US government spends $5000 per person because everyone they cover is over 65 years old. It's easy to say your system is more efficient when you're including people who never use the healthcare system.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-10 09:36:22

#1122

uziq: Member; +493|3671

Jay wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
The real difference is the UK Government can cover all its population for £2069 per person or ~6.5% GDP. With an Additional £500 per capita spent on private health care.
The US Government spends about $5000 per person (~9% GDP) to cover about 30% of the population with an additional $5000 per capita being spent on private health care.

And for having 1.5times the tax burden and an having to foot your own bill 70% of the time you still get no better result.
The US government spends $5000 per person because everyone they cover is over 65 years old. It's easy to say your system is more efficient when you're including people who never use the healthcare system.

US must be the only country in the western world with an inverted population pyramid and lots of seniors sucking on public services and tax spend.

2016-05-10 09:43:53

#1123

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
The real difference is the UK Government can cover all its population for £2069 per person or ~6.5% GDP. With an Additional £500 per capita spent on private health care.
The US Government spends about $5000 per person (~9% GDP) to cover about 30% of the population with an additional $5000 per capita being spent on private health care.

And for having 1.5times the tax burden and an having to foot your own bill 70% of the time you still get no better result.
The US government spends $5000 per person because everyone they cover is over 65 years old. It's easy to say your system is more efficient when you're including people who never use the healthcare system.
US must be the only country in the western world with an inverted population pyramid and lots of seniors sucking on public services and tax spend.

I know you're in a pissy mood, but he said per capita. When you compare a country with a universal NHS to Medicare, it's apples to oranges.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-05-10 10:38:39

#1124

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6900|Disaster Free Zone

US spends twice as much to cover 1/3 the people. That's 6 times the cost.

2016-05-10 11:01:33

#1125

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5577|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:
US spends twice as much to cover 1/3 the people. That's 6 times the cost.

So you think expanding our system to cover everyone is a good idea then? If our government does such a good job keeping costs down as is, it would certainly do a better job if you added another 200 million people to the rolls, no?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Jay wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Board footer