There's nothing I can reply to "the government can run health care better." Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world. My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad? If you're referring to the infant mortality rate, not every country reports every infant death like we do. We include in that number, all of those infants that are neglected, abandoned, left in garbage cans, dumpster and those that are just killed by the parent.Our healthcare is the best in the world (which may have something to do with the US being the the richest country in the world and not a result of our healthcare system), but our healthcare system is terrible. What you're essentially saying with is that we should judge our healthcare system by the standard of care provided for the richest among us, even though those with insurance are not always afforded care.
I shall leave the debate over internal medi-care to the Americans, however I did wish to comment on the international aspects of the below;
There's nothing I can reply to "the government can run health care better." Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world.
You are the only "Western Nation" on the planet who doesn't have provision of health care for all it's citizens. Indeed the best health care in the world is universal; Norway! Though all of the EU's states work varying universal health care systems; nor has it bankrupted the EU; and I dare no European would want the American health care system, which I think tells its own story.
My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad?
Because compared to the majority of the World the U.S. Healthcare system is better; for example would you rather be treated in Mexico or the US? But in reality, such a thought is just misleading as all it shows is your health care is better than Mexico's. Especially when you consider that your Healthcare provision lags well behind the rest of the western world. Additionally to supplement my argument; proportionally more people try to come to the UK for healthcare than the U.S.
Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world. My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad?There's a big difference between 'effectiveness of care' and 'access to effective care', particularly in the US.
If you live in a large metro area near a university hospital, you're likely to get first-rate care. Some of the best medical research in the world is being done in the US, but some of the best is also being done in Japan and the UK, to name a few other top-notch research areas. Japan and the UK have universal health care systems.
If you live in a rural area and you don't have enough money for medical care, the best you can get is federal-mandated ER care. Once your condition is no longer an emergency, the hospital will discharge you and you'll be on your own. That happened to a good friend of mine who had a heart attack. He was working so he wasn't eligible for Medicaid. He wasn't old enough for Medicare. He couldn't afford the extremely high insurance premiums. He got treated on an emergency basis for his heart attack, but he couldn't afford the follow-up care and medications that he needed. What could he do? Not a whole lot until he had another heart attack that was so bad it disabled him, and _then_ he could get Medicaid/Medicare disability to get the health care he needed. That's the insanity that needs to stop in the US, and why we need to switch over to universal care. Insurance costs are rising far faster than inflation or the tax rate. Yes, we'll have to pay more taxes in a universal system, that's a no-brainer. However, we'll get rid of insurance companies that are ripping Americans off by jacking up rates, taking premiums, and then dropping people when they come down with any kind of illness that could put a dent into shareholder profits.
We pay a lot more in private costs than people in other countries do in taxes for the same care. There's something wrong with that picture.
If Norway has the best medical care in the world, then we should look at not only what they're doing for research, but how they're able to deliver that care in a less costly and more efficient manner than the US does.
Yes, the USPS delivers all kinds of mail and packages. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's poorly run. If the USPS were private, or properly funded by the govt, it wouldn't run (nor would it be able to) such huge deficits. The fact that you have state stores doesn't mean that the govt is better than the private sector, just that the govt has seen it as a source of revenue stream. And you know that $$ is like crack for the govt.
All this really says to me is that the majority of citizens aren't doing their job to make their government run effectively. It's not really an argument against anything I've stated.
The territorial integrity of the Union and the people from a potential tyranny, either foreign OR domestic. Just what is "the welfare of the union"? That's a slippery slope kind of concept......VERY elastic.
Not really a slippery slope concept at all, at least no more so than anything you hear conservatives running their gums about. Clearly you're out of arguments to claim that running the nation with better productivity is liberal horse-hockey.
We don't have a sense of personal responsibility b/c it's not pc enough of a concept.
No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".
Between pop culture and education pushing concepts like collective responsibility and the culture of victimization, why would anyone expect people to take responsibility for anything when it's easier to blame everyone else.
Why would you expect your way of life to change that, as it's clearly a large part of the breeding of such feelings?
As to the Reagan hating, sithy, give it a rest.
I will when people stop talking about him.
Johnson's great society programs went a long way toward ghettofication of the black communities in the US.
Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.
Unions are no less responsible for making American goods uncompetitively priced. Industries like steel and the automobile made bad decisions long before Reagan got into office that reduced their competitiveness.
True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.
No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".
That sounds strangely like... "I want the best health care in the world, but I don't want to pay for it"
Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.
True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.
Yeah Reagan introduced Crack :¬:
Too bad that shift of factories also had the effect of creating the technology boom of the 90s.
That sounds strangely like... "I want the best health care in the world, but I don't want to pay for it"
Which is what the Republican party is yelling.
Yeah Reagan introduced Crack :¬:
The CIA released the papers to prove it, as well as the Freeway Ricky Ross biography in which he talks about all his meetings with CIA and DEA agents, where they showed him means to quickly cultivate and spread crack-cocaine.
Too bad that shift of factories also had the effect of creating the technology boom of the 90s.
Slightly, but still doesn't change the fact that it was coming regardless. We actually probably could have had even more benefit had we maintained factories inside the US. Honestly the only argument here is one that shows support of slave labor and child labor, as that's what allowed for the profitable boom which you're alluding to. Either way, it's a weak argument and anything it argues for is questionable in nature.
All this really says to me is that the majority of citizens aren't doing their job to make their government run effectively. It's not really an argument against anything I've stated.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. You replied that the USPS was an example of where govt involvement made things more efficient, cost less., etc..
Originally Posted by Ten-96
Once again it begs the question: What private industry has ever been improved, become more efficient or it's costs been lowered when the government has gotten involved?
Originally Posted by El Sitherino
Alcohol, letter and parcel delivery service, emergency services to name a few.
Govt involvement in the mortgage industry, mail delivery and healthcare have done nothing but introduce inefficiencies into the system. They only seem to cost less to the end user b/c the govt covers the shortfalls with tax monies.
Not really a slippery slope concept at all, at least no more so than anything you hear conservatives running their gums about. Clearly you're out of arguments to claim that running the nation with better productivity is liberal horse-hockey.
Your assumption that govt involvement has made things more efficient is the only horse-hockey in question.
No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".
No, that's merely another problem all by itself. A companion piece as it were.
Why would you expect your way of life to change that, as it's clearly a large part of the breeding of such feelings?
:confused:
I will when people stop talking about him.
I've noticed it's people like you who usually get that ball rolling by blaming Reagan for all the problems of the world.
Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.
:rolleyes:
True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.
Point is that you can't blame Reagan for things that had nothing to do with him specifically and predated his terms in office. The problems that plagued those industries were there under Carter as well. Things didn't change much or at all under Clinton.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. You replied that the USPS was an example of where govt involvement made things more efficient, cost less., etc..
Which you didn't refute, in fact if you noticed you supported it by explaining how their ineptitude allows for the private sector to flourish, more so than it did before the USPS existed.
Govt involvement in the mortgage industry, mail delivery and healthcare have done nothing but introduce inefficiencies into the system. They only seem to cost less to the end user b/c the govt covers the shortfalls with tax monies.
And yet with all of this you still miss the point that we are responsible for making our government run efficiently. That's what elections are for as well as writing to our representatives. The fact that people don't do this does not automatically lead to the idea that governments are incapable of working for benefit.
Your assumption that govt involvement has made things more efficient is the only horse-hockey in question.
Really? Because so far the things I've listed have improved due to government intervention, regardless of whether the government programs themselves currently operate correctly.
I also ask do you feel we should no longer have a national Army and should break back down to state run militia?
No, that's merely another problem all by itself. A companion piece as it were.
Not entirely, but I have a feeling at this point any further argument would really just be destructive to the debate.
Point is that you can't blame Reagan for things that had nothing to do with him specifically and predated his terms in office. The problems that plagued those industries were there under Carter as well. Things didn't change much or at all under Clinton.
Actually I'm pretty sure I can blame Reagan, but if you wish to falsify information and claim Carter as the starter of transferring America's industry overseas you're free to do so, as this is the internet and people have plenty of fanfiction all over the place.
Which you didn't refute, in fact if you noticed you supported it by explaining how their ineptitude allows for the private sector to flourish, more so than it did before the USPS existed.
And yet with all of this you still miss the point that we are responsible for making our government run efficiently. That's what elections are for as well as writing to our representatives. The fact that people don't do this does not automatically lead to the idea that governments are incapable of working for benefit.
Really? Because so far the things I've listed have improved due to government intervention, regardless of whether the government programs themselves currently operate correctly.
I also ask do you feel we should no longer have a national Army and should break back down to state run militia?
Not entirely, but I have a feeling at this point any further argument would really just be destructive to the debate.
Actually I'm pretty sure I can blame Reagan, but if you wish to falsify information and claim Carter as the starter of transferring America's industry overseas you're free to do so, as this is the internet and people have plenty of fanfiction all over the place.
Didn't know whether to answer this or just continue :rofl:
First, I didn't agree with anything you said on the first point. If you can assume, as you clearly do, that it's people's fault collectively for govt failure, then you can't criticize anyone for assuming/believing/asserting that the only problem with the private sector is that people have failed there too. So, maybe you should write your own fanfic about how government will brighten our lives if only we cared enough to make it work. :rolleyes:
Also, you don't read very closely, b/c I never asserted that Carter did anything but be in office, like Reagan, while industry made mistakes that hurt their futures. Same for Clinton. But to claim that Reagan was the "starter of transferring America's industry overseas" is a form of fanfic itself. Industry did that, not the politicians. But if you're going to play that fast and loose with facts, this discussion probably can't go anywhere but downhill.
As far as your argument about the army/military goes, they have a more legitimate constitutional claim to federal govt funding than all the myriad social programs that you appear to favor.
And as far as the argument about personal responsibility goes, both observations are fair about modern society. We've devolved into a culture of victimization and people have developed an entitlement mentality, from the individual to the corporation.
Which is what the Republican party is yelling.
No, Republicans are yelling that we want to pay for ourselves, not for everyone else. Dems are the ones saying it should be free.
The CIA released the papers to prove it, as well as the Freeway Ricky Ross biography in which he talks about all his meetings with CIA and DEA agents, where they showed him means to quickly cultivate and spread crack-cocaine.
Source?
Slightly, but still doesn't change the fact that it was coming regardless. We actually probably could have had even more benefit had we maintained factories inside the US. Honestly the only argument here is one that shows support of slave labor and child labor, as that's what allowed for the profitable boom which you're alluding to. Either way, it's a weak argument and anything it argues for is questionable in nature.
Did you even live through that time? US companies HAD to shift to manufacturing overseas as they couldn't compete and remain profitable with other foreign companies. Overseas manufacturing would have happened regardless. Reagan made it possible for that manufacturing to be done for American interests. Which also had the effect of having R&D done in the States as companies were terrified of leaving their secrets overseas.
Interesting. I have noticed this:
"Government will brighten our lives, if only everyone cared enough to make it work."
"Capitalism wouldn't be so corrupt if people took responsibility and did the right thing."
The one factor in both of these is the human element. The world would be a better place if only people cared. If only.
I know there are some who still believe in ethical conduct. But yet there are at least just as many who argue there is no right and wrong; no good and evil, whom beset those with noble intentions.
If anyone is going to argue the ethics card, maybe you ought to be an example of it yourself or at least give an example and be willing to stand corrected. Hmm?
Carry on.