Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so. Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
And I am happy to know that if I am burgled or mugged the criminal will rarely have a gun and that it's even rarer that the gun will be used. Regardless of whether the cops will catch the criminal, I can cope with losing some money or property.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
Well, you could say I've been to a socialist country: I was born in a one with mostly state controlled economy. I am currently living abroad in a Northern European country which has had a large socialist party in the government for the last twenty decades. And you know what? The living standards are excellent in both countries. Working public transportation, no people living under the poverty line (check out the US and UK stats in the CIA worldbook for comparison), free public schooling, public libraries and goverment subsidized university level education to allow even the low wage blue collar workers' kids to have an advanced degree if they so choose. Crime is low because the social "safety net" will provide you with basic necessities even you go completely bankcrupt.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though). As I've pointed out in one of my recent posts, I've undergone several surgeries. The latest problem with the eye was diagnosed at a private clinic (you know, private clinics are allowed even if the public health care is run by the government!), I got a referral to the local hospital (state run university hospital) and was under the knife in a week. I spent another week in the ward and paid $200 for that - the $8000 operation itself was paid by the society. I pay the progressive 28% income tax gladly for a system like that that is accessible to all citizens regardless of their income (unlike insurances).
You should know more about practical socialism before your spout nonsense like that. That's the kind of black and white reasoning that's not realistic. There is a middle ground between dog-eat-dog capitalism and total commitment to a government run economy, you know.
I wonder...I'm in the US, middle class. I pay about 30-ish% federal income tax, probably (ballpark, not pulling out the figures to look) 10% state income tax, social security tax, medicate tax, sales tax (6.5%), personal property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
I would estimate that over half of my earned income goes back to the government in some way, shape, or form. Would over 50% taxation make the US a socialist nation?
I've got 28% income/social security tax, 0.5% state church tax and I pay a 5% - 28% sales tax depending on what I'm buying (books cheap, electronics expensive). If you're drinking a lot or drive a car a lot you end up paying a lot more as there's an outrageous tax on alcohol and gasoline. Property in general is not taxed unless you own several expensive apartments, stock worth of hunderds of thousands of Euros or luxury yachts.
You wouldn't have to. Only protestant christians get inducted to the state church upon their birth if the parents so wish. Only the members of the church pay that tax.
I could avoid the tax just by leaving the church, but to save just 0.5% in my taxes isn't worth the effort of filling that form. I consider it as an advance payment for my place in the graveyard, so that my family (or whomever's left behind) doesn't have to pay for it.
0.5% of $40,000 a year (not that I know what you earn!) comes out as $8,000 over a 40 year career. Surely that's quite a lot of money for a hole in the ground?
What you should be asking isn't "how much of my money needs to go to taxes to make this a Socialist nation," but rather, "what am I getting for 50% of my income?" We probably *could* afford single-payer health care if we spent less on pork, questionable defense projects, etc. It's not a matter of how much money the government spends, as a matter of what we are spending it on.
Not really, the government is simply less efficient than the private sector at providing a good or service. In the US we spend nearly 1/7th of our income on health related items and services. A large part of the supposed savings that come from a government run system is the fact that you cant sue the government, unlike now where you can sue your doctor or insurance company. Do you know what a doctor pays for malpractice insurance?
Rising legal costs and the heavy federal regulation of healthcare (not to mention that the concept of health insurance, for non catastrophic events, runs counter to the market economy) Employer provided health insurance, as we know it now, was and invention of WWII era employers who needed a way to get around wage freezes. Since fringe benefits were not considered part of wages, employers could "increase" pay legally by adding worker benefits. People used to pay medical expenses out of pocket. Insurance with a very low deductable is fine for emergency things like car accidents, since no one expects to use it. But it makes more sense to "normal" expenses out of pocket. Tort reform and a change in the nature of health insurance would make the healthcare industry much more competitive than it is now.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though)
I visited Norway recently, and while I was there heard several horror stories in the media about medical care that was slow and incompetent. My (native) host also believed that the system had significant problems in that regard. Granted, this is a very small dataset; I'd be interested in seeing a more scientific take on the subject.
There are problems such as shortage of nurses and doctors refusing to go and work in small communities in the rural areas.
The first one is a direct result from the necessary cuts in the public spending in the 1990s depression. Nurses get ridiculously small pay for the physically and mentally heavy work they do. Better pay could now be afforded but the conservative right wing section of the government would usually rather spend the available money on military hardware and law enforcement.
Second problem is a social one and in my mind cannot be addressed by economical means.
I just moved back to the states from the Uk, having lived there for 3 years and 1 year in Switzerland.
I found the health care in switzerland to be excelent, even though it was private. You had to have healthcare, to be registered in a city.. which you had to be to legally rent an apartment. The taxes where I was living was about 14% total, not including taxes on things like Garbage (yes,a stamp had to be put on every bag you take out.. at 1 dollar per bag, it encourages you to recycle everything you can).
My wife went to the doctor a few times, for this and that, and was quite happy with the modern clinic. The doctors seemed progressive and would offer medicine that was both herbal and western in nature. (No robotusin for a cold, but a herbal concoction you get at the pharmacy).
Anyway, I loved the swiss method of handling things, and at 1% un-employement, and guarding their borders in a way that would make the queen of england prooud, they don't seem to have a lot of the problems that other EU countries have with the poor and destitute.
Now, england is a complete flip-side. I have spent more hours sitting in a clinic waiting for the bloody doctor to just show up for work. (No appointment at my local surgery). When the doctor does show up, they seem to not give a damn about what the problem is. My wife sat waiting to be seen for almost 6 hours. No joke. A co-worker waited 7 months for status on a testicular lump that he was worried might be cancer. Yada yada.
When we found out we where having a baby, our first, we decided to pack our stuff up and move back to the states. Pretty scarry stuff. I can't speak for the rest of the EU, I am sure that they are in better shape than Uk. I was watching a debate on Brittish TV, and there is a statistic that if you get stomach cancer, your chance of survival is 6%. In the US your chance of survival is 61%. Fricken nuts.
And as for shoving people out the door. When we came back the US, we didn't have a job or much money. We immediately qualified for medicade and even after I got my new job, the state took care of the child birth and all the expenses including 6 months of birth control after the child birth for my wife and 3 follow up visits. Now we are back on private health care with my job, but to say that the hospital kicked me out is plain false.
I don't think that my case is special. I don't think that a lot of people realize is that in the US, there is help if you really need it. I am not a bum out on the street, but when we moved back to the US.. we did need some help, and I am glad we had it.
Private sector will always be better off than public, even in healthcare. What they need to do is put legislation in to keep the mall-practive law-suits under control and help keep the costs down so insurance isn't expensive for everyone. Look at the mortality rates across the board, you will be surprised what america's health care is churning out. It was a big enough difference for me to move across the world to have our baby.
You made the parent's point: America's medicine *is* socialized, albeit haphazardly. Do we want to release it into the free market?
If you look at the amount of money involved, the problem is not malpractice suits. It's health insurance that incourages both the patient and the doctor to over do it. Why don't people buy generic drugs? Because their insurance is paying for it. Why do OB/GYN run a test for Downs Syndrome in utero? There's nothing they can do about it, (except abortion). They run the test because it's a few extra bucks. The mother to be lets them because it's not her money.
Another problem with health costs? Everyone is guaranteed treatment...but only in an emergency. These emergencies are expensive and the cost is picked up buy those who can afford it. Much of the cost could be alleviated by guaranteeing cheaper preventive medicine to everyone.
The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
....and what was the voter turnout in the last US election ? You claim tht is a result of 'statist' economic policies, but really, is there any G8 country where the above statement is more applicable than the US ?
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed. I'm sure many of the/. readers left jobless by recent events in the tech industry will back me up on this one.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
Actually, i was thinking about Sweden, perhaps one of the most depressing countries I have ever visited. I also was employed with a certain large multinational corporation based in Sweden.
Gothenberg is a dump. Their stores are empty of goods, McDonalds cost an insane amount of money. It cost $15 for a Happy Meal.
I am from New York City, and I can say without a doubt, the subway system here is finitely better than anything available in Sweden. The trollies in Gothenberg were obviously from the 1950's, long before the vice grip of the socialist regime was put in place. We won't even get into the architecture. Gothenberg is a shining example of why post modernism sucks. Not having to endure such boring architecure alone is a great reason not to live there. Sweden looks like the country it is, a country that has raped their people of everything of value. All thats left is some decrepit transportation system and wretched modern buildings.
As far as Cuba. hey, if you want to go there by all means do so. I look forward to so some socialist swedes to tell me why their primitive country is so wonderful. What makes it so great to live there. I find no redeeming value in that hell hole. Its cold, the women look like they take steroids, the architecture makes me sick, the restaurants are outrageously expensive, the stores have no products to sell, and its overall a dirty nation. The worst part is the people, they are lazy, tired, and beaten down. They are a dying nation, desperate to keep their sick society alive.
McDonalds cost an insane amount of money. It cost $15 for a Happy Meal.
Oh please! You are either lying, or was severely ripped off.
I am Swedish, and there is a lot to say about this country. But the parent post seems rather trollish... I mean, $15 for a happy meal for christs sake!
As for comparing New York with a city with roughly half a million people. Well, that's just plain stupid.
I will leave the rest of your troll uncommented, as it is not worth the time. I've already bitten and I hope you are satisfied. Enjoy your $15 Happy Meal benzapp, and don't let people sell you any more bridges!
Btw. Gotenburg really is a dump, but that's just my opinion.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Actually, the police do little to stop real crime (i'm not talking speeding tickets here i'm talking robberies, assault, murder, etc.). They are little more than glorified paper pushers labeled as a deterrent. Basically you have to commit murder before any investigative part of the police force is brought in. The local police where I live, always give the lame excuse that they are undermanned (even though there is like 1 cop per 100 people in the city). Its more like they are to busy enforcing traffic violations and petty civil issues (loud music, arresting people who haven't paid their late tickets etc.) to do anything except show up and write an incident report when a real crime occurs.
I am apparently one of the few people who doesn't take the "we need more police" line seriously. More police != lower crime rate. Even though that is usually the reason given to hire more. Instead I see 50 cops standing on street corners "showing presence" in groups of three or so on a friday night when I go downtown to drink. Since, the town I live in is pretty laid back its rare to actually see them doing anything. Most of the 'disturbances' probably occur in the bars which already have hired security there to check id's and deal with such problems.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force. Instead of the first instinct being "call the police!" the first instinct should be "lets go stop that!" Five to ten minutes later when the police show up there is a good chance that the burglar has run off with a few valuable things, the rapist has finished up and ran away, or the murderer is half way across town.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force.
No, you have 99% of the population as an untrained armed mob. Would you really feel safer if you knew that every junkie, angry drunk, borderline sufferer of mental illness and road rage perpetrator you met was packing heat? Reducing crime by arming the whole population is like limiting the probability of nuclear war by giving everyone their own atom bomb!
How about I present you will the other side of your unlikely situation.
If an angry mob (with or without guns take your pick, although I should point out most angry mobs in the US in the last few years were partially armed) were to attack your neighborhood. Would you want to have a gun to defend your home, wife and children? On the other hand you can call the police, and hope they can get though in time, or you can hope that you can escape from your house trailing your wife and children and hope that no one catches you, or your loved ones. Again, if you decide to run would you like to have a gun with you?
It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Is being lynched by a mob any worse than having a gang of cops shove a plunger up your ass, or being shot 42 times by the police on your way home from work?
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
Please don't do that. That's fraud and theft nothing more.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed.
Whose fault is it then? Mine? Yours? The evil corporation? If you want my taxpaying help to send your poor sorry corpse to the doctor at least have some grace about it.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
It might be free, if you don't count the fact that you're not. They are also usually out of many medicines so they don't have much to charge you for. Been there? Used it? Not with that opinion.
like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
You are citing real world examples. That isn't fair.
Objectivists have based their entire philosophy on Ayn Rand's fictional novels, of which The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are just two. This is in contrast to other schools of capitalist, socialist, and even communist thought, which, however flawed they may be, at least have insight enough to cite serious academic studies as the foundation of their ethos and philisophical views.
Does this mean a world view based upon a fictional work is false, or one based upon a scientific or academic study will yield better results? Not necessarilly, any more than we can know with certainty that science will yield a more accurate understanding of the universe than religion (of whatever flavor) will.
However, the vast majority of evidence is that science does yield better practical results than religious dogma, and rigorous academic studies more useful insights than works of fiction.
Having said all that, in Ayn Rand's defense (and I say this despite disagreeing with many of her assumptions and rather myopic views on a number of subjects), she was nowhere near as extreme as many of her adherents.
BTW - When I lived and worked in Germany I made two interesting observations:
1. German taxes were not significantly higher for middle and upper-middle income people there than they are in the United States, despite their having an excellent social net, including a form of socialized medicine (socialized via a strictly regulated insurance industry and policies paid for with public moneys for those who cannot afford the premiums), and
2. The healthcare I was provided there was vastly better than what I have in the United States, despite having one of the better PPOs currently available. The American system appears to be designed to subsidize high-end medical procedures, available generally only to the very wealthy or very well insured (two groups which are quickly becoming synonymous) through vastly higher costs for standard medical procedures (like getting a checkup or an allergy shot).
We in the United States pay three times as much for our less adequate healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world does for the "less effecient" socialized healthcare -- a fact which should put to rest once and for all the myth that the free market is always more effecient than a public works equivelent. In the area of healthcare, where the customer is captive by nature of the fact that without it they will suffer and possibly die, clearly the power of the customer to choose, or reject unacceptable conditions of service vs. the power of the provider to coerce or set their own conditions, is so degraded as to make a "free" marketplace in any meaningful sense impossible. This leaves corporate oligarchies and trusts vs. socialized medicine as the two real choices we face, and the experience of the entire developed world, outside of the united states, indicates that the socialized approach is vastly more effecient and effective.
Show me some facts and figures to support you claims. I do not dispute your personal observations about healthcare in Europe. How was it outside the cities? Did you bother to look? I know the infant mortality is slightly lower and the life expectancy is slightly higher, but that's coming from a country that 50 years ago had no qualms with stuffing millions of people in ovens.
Anyways, most of the medical technology is coming from here, and people flock to the USA to cutting edge, "the best of the best" medical care, and whatnot. Sure it costs money. I'm not aware of a better place in the world to deal with cancers, heart diseases - if you can pay for it, or you get on a waiting list, but its here. I don't see rich Americans flock to other countries for "good medical care."
And judging on what most Canadians say about social medicine, I'll take my chances with American PPOs, I have little faith in western medicine, sure they can stop the bleeding. But fatal illnesses are a death sentence everywhere. The USA just capitalizes on it.
Want to live longer? The most high-aged demographic is Japan, the fish eating green tea drinking Okanawans. Is the economy collapsing under the huge stress of lots of old people around - sure is. Should we young ones sacrifice our disposable income in the better part of our lives to subsidize dying people? I don't know. If you are young, you are inclined to be austere towards old people who haven't properly prepared for their own death [a guaranteed eventuality] and somehow magically old and even though it happens to everyone and we all get old a decrepit its a sudden surprise and now that I'm old everyone must be responsible for me because its the right thing to do.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, the third world is growing, the first world is shrinking. I can't afford children, not here, not Germany, not anywhere, and I'm making over 3 times the average. Is part of this due to subsidy of old people? Sure is, 7% of my pay gone for people who didn't prepare for death. Do I expect to see any of that 7%? No, because of pseudo socialism from FDR, I pay for other people's retirement and I have to pay for my own, without the prospect of subsidy. . If I was bought long term bonds/bills for all that money I put in and couldn't touch them until retirement would I have a million in the bank already? Yes. It's a corrupt slush fund. If there was a lean mean government, this wouldn't happen. And if people have more disposable income, it has been proven that in times of great economic prosperity and low taxes philanthropy goes way up. Socialists and Volvo-bike-path-Liberals talk about high taxes and responsibility, but would they care for their own dying again parents or stuff them in a nursing home? No, they get nursing home every time. They just find peace with themselves because they washed their hands of the problem by voicing out against the machine or voting for some corrupt idiot that made people vote for him single issue.
I have also heard in Engine there are statues of limitations on medical care (same as lifetime and policy pay out limits in the USA). If you are over a certain age and you get dialysis for example, you can reach a lifetime social limit, and when the society's obligation is met, if you don't pay for dialysis, plug pulled, see ya.
I can't be convinced that if I really, really needed great care for a really hard to survive illness I would want to go anywhere but the top hospital in the USA.
Christopher Reeves finger now moves. He has a broken neck. He is a rich man, he has done well, and he is giving large sums of money to cure paralysis. I refuse to believe philanthropy doesn't exist in a pure capitalist system. It's the fake socialist stuff that causes issues.
Do I trust the medical system here? No. Do I base my opinion about the system on one doctor? No, when I have a problem, I see two or three doctors. Some of them suck, some of them do great. Do I think every patient should get an MRI for every hospital visit? Yes! Is that going to cost something? YES! But here in America, I still have enough disposable cash to get the MRI, a full body scan, head scan and virtual colonoscopy is about $1000. Do they give MRIs and complete blood work if you are "paranoid" in your said country? I have been paranoid, I'm somewhat of a hypochondriac, and I have gotten complete blood work and an MRI at little cost to myself. The peace of mind is great.
I know from a friend who came from Europe what happens. Ever sniffle, sneeze cough drip-drop gastrointestinal pain costs the medical systems in the EU lots of money. Subsidized health care and social security is a huge portion of the budget in the EU nations. Do I see people here trying to find ways to retire in Sweden and burden their youth with their age and "retire in style" and get all this free shit? No. In fact, I see a lot of people here who love life, like Christopher Reeve, who advocate for a cause, and raise philanthropic (read: op in feel good money not forced tax money) interest in a cause for the love of life and liberty.
I just don't like the idea of some person's conception of the ideal being forcibly manifested. I may live in Canada, New Zealand or somewhere else someday as I am the firm believer in "don't like it? LEAVE." I haven't found a compelling reason to leave yet. I know Bush sounds silly, and Ashcroft is a fascist, and American Geopolitical policy isn't the greatest (we are not good, nor evil just as no other countries are good, nor evil, they just *ARE*, the exist, and they have a survival instincts and playing fair is back seated to survival), and the US-Reichstag may have burned, or it may have not, but if the Reichstag has burned, metaphorically, then I will live out my years somewhere else. But not for health care. For freedom.
Now don't believe the hype about the US either. If you are not fucking stupid and lazy, you can pick up a decent job for the government or an education system, with awesome retirement plans and health care, maternity leave, continuing education, education subsidy, you name it, the welfares for the taking. I find it amusing that most people who leverage this best are smart, or not from this country - they immigrate here, and they *never* leave [not that I have seen], and most of my proximal friends right now are foreign. But seriously, government jobs here are such government cheese, and if you like the Socialist way, work for the government. It's really not hard. Every single DMV, Police Station Employees (not the cops per se), City Hall, Court Clerks, Libraries, Military personnel, Government Contractors, tax exempt non profit companies and generally anyone who isn't working for a for profit business are living the great life - and having brains and working there are not mutually inclusive.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
A lot of the problems with the recent Enron and WorldCom, etc. scandals were caused BY government regulation. That is, government regulation that was being written by the very companies it was supposed to control.
Corrupt and biased regulation is far, far worse than no regulation at all. The Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lays of the world may claim to lay their alllegiance at the feet of the free market, but a system where the ground rules are written and rewritten by the biggest players to ensure their own profits is far from a free market.
In theory, government regulation would be fair and impartial to all competitors. But then, in theory communism works too. The real world is quite a bit different.
> The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific.
In what theory is capitalism ethical? Nothing in my readings has any statements about an ethical dimension.
> Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment? How is this different to the "socialist" case?
> You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
You raise some good points, no doubt. But Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and happpened to write a book called the Wealth of Nations--the very founding of capitalism as an idea and social system. I suggest you read it.
In the same moral theory that is behind the idea freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the words "all Men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the moral theory under which capitalism is ethical.
Something tells me that you've heard about these theories before, but just that you didn't make the connection that they have to capitalism.
The three fundamental rights of every man are Life, Liberty and Property. Justice is defined as the enforcement of these rights. The only extent to which your fundamental rights can be deprived is to protect the fundamental rights of everyone, including yourself. For example, it is moral to force people to pay taxes (deprive them of property) to pay for police and military, which will protect the rights of everybody from thugs and foreign invaders. In the case of life and property, when I say that government should "protect" them, I mean that government should "keep other people from physically taking away your freedom to create and preserve your own property and life." The only economic system the stems from the recognition of these rights is capitalism. Socialism and Communism are especially immoral because they outright deny the existence of property as a right. Anarchism is wrong because it does not take any steps to protect these rights.
There you have it: a crash coarse in why capitalism is the only ethical and moral economic system. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
>As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
I would say chant "Everyone can solve his own problems"
>So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment?
The same thing that happens when you want an iPod and you don't have enough money-- you can choose to do with out the iPod or appeal to others for assistance, which they may or may not choose to give you. In the case of the iPod, other people are probably not going to find your need very important, but I bet that if you had cancer, people would be much more likely to help you. There are free voluntary charity organizations for things like that. You're probably going to say , "there isn't enough private money to help all the people with cancer," and to that I would say: "tough." It is not one of your fundamental rights to get cancer treatment (see the bold part of the my third paragraph). It is everyone's right to choose how to manage the products of his own mind (property). You don't have a right to force others to give up their property no matter how pressing your need is (unless your need is the protection of one of your fundamental rights).
They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
Where the hell have you been going to find such a mis-managed public health care system? I waited one week for non-emergency surgery to clear a blockage to one of my kidneys. Had it been an emergency (like an organ I don't have a backup of...:p), I would have been under the knife that same day.
I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so.
You can't defend yourself when a criminal carries one too and realizes you've got one as well... so then shoots you in the back before rifling through the pockets on your slowly-cooling corpse.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
This is precisely why successful countries you might call "socialist", aren't socialist at all. They, in fact, compromise.
My country, for example... Welfare is a bad, self-destructive idea. Much better to put these people to work doing highway construction, cleanup, etc... Whatever they're capable of doing for their "work-fare" cheques. The work is hard enough and pays little enough that they WILL try to get a real job. We won't let them starve to death, but we aren't going to let them have a free ride either.
Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Government can't solve all problems, but it can solve some. It's stupid to give government free reign, and it's just as stupid to abolish it entirely.
Like law enforcement? In fact it was like this in Britain with the fire brigades. Each fire brigade was owned by an insurance company and they would fight a fire in your house only if your house was insure by the appropriate insurance company, while letting the fire burn your neighbour's house. This crazy system was later replaced by local/national governement controls.
Another area where governements are necessary is pollution control. The private electricity industry in the US pollutes (proportionally) 6 times more than the (previoulsy or still) state owned electricity industry in Europe. This is a staggering number.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
It might not be that way with a head injury... but it's that way with AIDS patients in lots of cities. Not to mention those needing an organ donation. And lots of other cases since the HMO's became popular.
Not in Europe and Canada. Aid's victims have full access to healthcare, just like an accident victim, or a smoker. You must be thinking about backwards countries like the USA.
Like health care? Like law enforcement? Like rescue services?
LIKE PHONE SERVICE? "I'm sorry, but your account is past due -- no service for you. If you pay us all of the access charges, universal service charges, 911 charges, number portability charges, in addition to our wildy overpriced monthy rate, we'll be happy to restore your poor-quality analog line. Wonderful.
We subsidize certain services (Police Fire, sometimes health care) as a matter of public policy. Why should we subsidize a nice-to-have-but-not-essential service if it wasn't a public service to begin with, especially if it impairs the adoption of better technology that would probably cost less than the crap we have now? Investors bought telco stocks and bonds, knowing that certain risks were involved, premature obsolescense being damn near the top of the list.
For the most part, the US economic system does a wonderful job of purging itself of obsolete companies. The death of such companies creates opportunities for better competitors.
We think nothing of closing a factory and moving it to Mexico or China in search of cheap labor; how is this any different? It's tragic for individuals in the short run, but in the long run, we're all better off when people migrate to more competitive industries. If the telcos have to die anyway, get it over with. If we grant European-style subsidies to every industry that has a problem, we'll have sky-high unemployement, and a reduced standard of living (like the Europeans do). Once everyone is getting a subsidy, the tax burden will choke off any possibility of economic growith.
My retirement plan may be adversely impacted by the telcos demise, but it will have time to bounce back. Having subsidized telcos won't change my expectation that they will continue as a underperforming investment. Thanks, Uncle Sam, but no thanks.
I have absolutely no problems with the idea of dropping state subsidies from the likes of telcos, shipbuilding docks, steel industries and airplane manufacturers.
I do, however, consider it a fundamental function of a state to provide reliable and affordable health care, education, transportation and welfare to all. Those who have plenty, should give to those who are in need; thus progressive taxation. These strategic functions should not be privatized. Competition would perhaps drive the costs down, but the lowest bidder isn't always the best option for critical services.
I do, however, consider it a fundamental function of a state to provide reliable and affordable health care, education, transportation and welfare to all. Those who have plenty, should give to those who are in need; thus progressive taxation.
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
I very much enjoyed your post. I don't agree with all of your points, but you nailed the gist of it: anarchy is NOT a reasonable form of government. It's tyranny in that it's the law of the jungle replacing the rule of law. It never ceases to amaze me how one man's wasteful program is another man's vital public service. I think that, overall, the Founders were pretty bright guys. And if they wanted EVERYTHING to be dictated by a market, there would be no postal service, no census bureau, no govermental services at all. They didn't go that route. I'm a rabid capitalist, but I recognize that in a civilized society, some things should be publicly available to all. You can debate what they are, and at what level services should be provided, but it's foolish to just say "let the market handle it".
CLITORIS CHOPPING ADVOCATE! Long time no see Sudanese genital multilator supporter!;p How are you October_69th? You piece of fucking loser shit. I know you and your types. The communist is back. I know you and how you want to purify yourself on the alter of intellectual debate. I know you think you are smarter and should think for everyone and democracy is bad and that we should atone. I know you do nothing and you are a professional academic and that is sadly a contradiction in terms. I know no one has ever benefited from your work, you don't have to prove yourself, and that you stand on the shoulder of many men with a crushing boot as do your 1st world friends. We all do. But somehow you get absolution from being evil, you are better; you are a deeper thinker and are somehow not a party to this evil dance of greed and decadence. You fucking anti right wing types, by no mean would I condone fascism, but ultra left wingers and ultra right wingers are religious zealots. They wash themselves of blame and use human sacrifice to prove they are right. You are a fear monger, and a naysayer. But Red October_30th, you never prove yourself. You hide in school, hiding from the proving grounds. You enjoy life; you expect to live 3 times longer than most people on earth. You think you want it equal for everyone one, but you will give up none of the accoutrements and amenities of the 1st world lifestyle, while you spit venomous remarks at your enemies the right wing establishment, but you theories about cabals of men raping the world, well, whatever you theorize about you are a party to so fuck off. You vile scum. I wanted to ask you how it feels to put the diapers back on a baby you just raped? Look at the communist left wing Bund, rules by intellectuals, and this lead to the power base of V I Lenin to crush the life out of hundreds of millions of people for almost a century. Real good left wing establishment, the soviet empire. You are such a clouded thinker. Democracy may not be the best, but mobocratic revolutions lead to thought policing, and capitalism breed a daily voting system that the stupid and smart all partake in, voting thousands of times a day with your wallet. And those who detract from such a system are generally inferior. They claim to not being able to get a break but they don't try. Like you don't 'October,' the pussy behind the veil. You don't like a system which makes you look pathetic, you never published, you don't have a patent, you never helped anyone, you only make enough to feed yourself and you greedy needs, you will never affect another man. And charity? I have taken many under my wing and show them how to fish metaphorically whenever I can, but your bourgeois Volvo driving liberal asshole don't want to take the time out of your day to teach a man to fish, you want the government to do it all for you, and raise your kids, and pay for your health while you suck down cigarettes and blame it on the government and evil business. Think of WW2, think of all the people who had no choice and died. 55 million people dies, and more would have had not the biggest evil capitalists come in a kicked fucking ass. And that we did. USSR, 11 million dead. Germany 4 million. Japan 1.4 million. The USA? 300,000 dead. We kick fucking ass. We saved you and your fucking little pit's neck. Now that the average age of the world is half that of how many years have passed since then most of you liberal idiots have forgotten that you and your Volvos and you free thinking and all that shit would be dead, and you'd either have grown up in a Hugo Boss Hitler youth suit or in a stupid piece of shit clothing made by the USSR with seams falling out, wishing for blue jeans.
I was in USSR in 1991. I doubt you've ever been, and even during glasnost/perestroika the place was a fucking dump. Go to Moscow now, the mafia does a better job than left wing commies. And that holds true. Left wing thinkers are lower than the mafia because they justify everything.
I can't believe you sit on your pulpit, unproven, unmarried, and not responsible for anyone but yourself allowed to masturbate yourself all day long, with the implements of greed. A full stomach, an easy non labor life, DVD players, a fucking computer and an internet connection. Then you come out and kick the balls of the very engine that provides everything that is real to you. Everything you look at is a product of entrepreneurship and genius - both. Sometimes, when a guy like Howard Hughes has both, the results are rather interesting, but most of the time the innovators and the entrepreneurs work hand in hand to deliver, something you were never a part of because you are inferior and you hide in academia unproven and spout your vicious epithets from your perch where you frothing rabid thoughtless speech wafts into the air largely unheard, your snarky self congratulating style is hated by all. I want to kick you in the testicle sack and sodomize you with a broom handle. I want you to feel the burning pain of something in your ass. That is how the 3rd world feels every day, but you claim to know nothing about that ass-pain. But you are a cause of it. You vote with your presence in a society. You are a part of the collective, and if you think those less fortunate consider your defense of them, they are too fucking STUPID to even differentiate and advocate from an evil oppressor. You mother-fuckers walk a thin line. The line is between stupidity and insanity.
So now the anti government anti free society lunatic and terrorist supporter comes to Slashdot to troll, to quip and chime in with his thought policing. From the Bund, the communist union left wing shop. Even Albert Einstein, god bless him, was a member of the communist party. He would have been a highly intelligent accomplished but completely unfit for public leadership - which is why he largely stayed out of politics. But without entrepreneurship and a free society, the money and equipment to verify his theories would have never come to pass. Why did my Einstein live in the USA, in Princeton NJ? Why not Russia? When did Russia EVER beat the west to proving and or utilizing Einstein's theories? Well, you see left wing death organizations like USSR and the EU, which is turning out to be a force of evil with their anti Turkish and Anti Israeli racist elitist attitude, is a similar fucking hole. A bunch of decadent, self fucking mental masturbatory mother fuckers Oedipus slime molds who sit around and spout trash while their own racist anti entrepreneur system crumbles and the third world is as pissed off as ever.
You god damn bitch, why do you come here and shit on these threads, you defecate and eructate forth such crap with your snarky one liners and you deprecated method of thinking. You communist friends are gone, the lost. Fucking Moscow is a better capitalist than you. And if you think that legislated mediocrity, world "equality (doesn't exist as all humans are equal in the eyes of law but in terms of aptitude and usefulness to others, there is no equality, it's a gigantic strata)" is something that people want, fuck you, no one wants it, they all want everything from themselves, as you do but you deny it. I hate you, and I want to kick your testicles.
The baby-fucking pedophile death bringing terrorist cunt mother fucker Oedipus Rexxed out communist idiot with his Volvo and his bike path is back. He is a rapist, a terrorist, and killer.
DO not trust this man, he has been known to say things that lead to the justification of rape, mass killings, thought policing, societal cleansing. He is a typical proto fascist/communist/dictator, and the far left and far right meet at the bottom of a circle where Red October_30th is positioned.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Give me a second to go call the media so the people in this town can get all riled up and come and firebomb your hospital... oh, or what were you saying about treatment?
Actually, "Pay your bills or we won't service you" is EXACTLY how some privately operated fire departments work. They're essentially subscription services paid for by their customer base, because they get little or no gov't funding (and they're also the only fire dept. available). Even if the crew are volunteers, someone's still got to pay for that pumper truck and the diesel it drinks. Anyway it's a fairly common situation in rural Montana, don't know about elsewhere.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I am happy to know that if I am burgled or mugged the criminal will rarely have a gun and that it's even rarer that the gun will be used. Regardless of whether the cops will catch the criminal, I can cope with losing some money or property.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
Well, you could say I've been to a socialist country: I was born in a one with mostly state controlled economy. I am currently living abroad in a Northern European country which has had a large socialist party in the government for the last twenty decades. And you know what? The living standards are excellent in both countries. Working public transportation, no people living under the poverty line (check out the US and UK stats in the CIA worldbook for comparison), free public schooling, public libraries and goverment subsidized university level education to allow even the low wage blue collar workers' kids to have an advanced degree if they so choose. Crime is low because the social "safety net" will provide you with basic necessities even you go completely bankcrupt.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though). As I've pointed out in one of my recent posts, I've undergone several surgeries. The latest problem with the eye was diagnosed at a private clinic (you know, private clinics are allowed even if the public health care is run by the government!), I got a referral to the local hospital (state run university hospital) and was under the knife in a week. I spent another week in the ward and paid $200 for that - the $8000 operation itself was paid by the society. I pay the progressive 28% income tax gladly for a system like that that is accessible to all citizens regardless of their income (unlike insurances).
You should know more about practical socialism before your spout nonsense like that. That's the kind of black and white reasoning that's not realistic. There is a middle ground between dog-eat-dog capitalism and total commitment to a government run economy, you know.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Doh... that's two decades, of course.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
I wonder...I'm in the US, middle class. I pay about 30-ish% federal income tax, probably (ballpark, not pulling out the figures to look) 10% state income tax, social security tax, medicate tax, sales tax (6.5%), personal property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
I would estimate that over half of my earned income goes back to the government in some way, shape, or form. Would over 50% taxation make the US a socialist nation?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I could avoid the tax just by leaving the church, but to save just 0.5% in my taxes isn't worth the effort of filling that form. I consider it as an advance payment for my place in the graveyard, so that my family (or whomever's left behind) doesn't have to pay for it.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Rising legal costs and the heavy federal regulation of healthcare (not to mention that the concept of health insurance, for non catastrophic events, runs counter to the market economy) Employer provided health insurance, as we know it now, was and invention of WWII era employers who needed a way to get around wage freezes. Since fringe benefits were not considered part of wages, employers could "increase" pay legally by adding worker benefits. People used to pay medical expenses out of pocket.
Insurance with a very low deductable is fine for emergency things like car accidents, since no one expects to use it. But it makes more sense to "normal" expenses out of pocket.
Tort reform and a change in the nature of health insurance would make the healthcare industry much more competitive than it is now.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I visited Norway recently, and while I was there heard several horror stories in the media about medical care that was slow and incompetent. My (native) host also believed that the system had significant problems in that regard. Granted, this is a very small dataset; I'd be interested in seeing a more scientific take on the subject.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
The first one is a direct result from the necessary cuts in the public spending in the 1990s depression. Nurses get ridiculously small pay for the physically and mentally heavy work they do. Better pay could now be afforded but the conservative right wing section of the government would usually rather spend the available money on military hardware and law enforcement.
Second problem is a social one and in my mind cannot be addressed by economical means.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just moved back to the states from the Uk, having lived there for 3 years and 1 year in Switzerland.
I found the health care in switzerland to be excelent, even though it was private. You had to have healthcare, to be registered in a city.. which you had to be to legally rent an apartment. The taxes where I was living was about 14% total, not including taxes on things like Garbage (yes,a stamp had to be put on every bag you take out.. at 1 dollar per bag, it encourages you to recycle everything you can).
My wife went to the doctor a few times, for this and that, and was quite happy with the modern clinic. The doctors seemed progressive and would offer medicine that was both herbal and western in nature. (No robotusin for a cold, but a herbal concoction you get at the pharmacy).
Anyway, I loved the swiss method of handling things, and at 1% un-employement, and guarding their borders in a way that would make the queen of england prooud, they don't seem to have a lot of the problems that other EU countries have with the poor and destitute.
Now, england is a complete flip-side. I have spent more hours sitting in a clinic waiting for the bloody doctor to just show up for work. (No appointment at my local surgery). When the doctor does show up, they seem to not give a damn about what the problem is. My wife sat waiting to be seen for almost 6 hours. No joke. A co-worker waited 7 months for status on a testicular lump that he was worried might be cancer. Yada yada.
When we found out we where having a baby, our first, we decided to pack our stuff up and move back to the states. Pretty scarry stuff. I can't speak for the rest of the EU, I am sure that they are in better shape than Uk. I was watching a debate on Brittish TV, and there is a statistic that if you get stomach cancer, your chance of survival is 6%. In the US your chance of survival is 61%. Fricken nuts.
And as for shoving people out the door. When we came back the US, we didn't have a job or much money. We immediately qualified for medicade and even after I got my new job, the state took care of the child birth and all the expenses including 6 months of birth control after the child birth for my wife and 3 follow up visits. Now we are back on private health care with my job, but to say that the hospital kicked me out is plain false.
I don't think that my case is special. I don't think that a lot of people realize is that in the US, there is help if you really need it. I am not a bum out on the street, but when we moved back to the US.. we did need some help, and I am glad we had it.
Private sector will always be better off than public, even in healthcare. What they need to do is put legislation in to keep the mall-practive law-suits under control and help keep the costs down so insurance isn't expensive for everyone. Look at the mortality rates across the board, you will be surprised what america's health care is churning out. It was a big enough difference for me to move across the world to have our baby.
Cheers
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
If you look at the amount of money involved, the problem is not malpractice suits. It's health insurance that incourages both the patient and the doctor to over do it. Why don't people buy generic drugs? Because their insurance is paying for it. Why do OB/GYN run a test for Downs Syndrome in utero? There's nothing they can do about it, (except abortion). They run the test because it's a few extra bucks. The mother to be lets them because it's not her money.
Another problem with health costs? Everyone is guaranteed treatment...but only in an emergency. These emergencies are expensive and the cost is picked up buy those who can afford it. Much of the cost could be alleviated by guaranteeing cheaper preventive medicine to everyone.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger .38 to do so.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed. I'm sure many of the /. readers left jobless by recent events in the tech industry will back me up on this one.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
Re: Sweden: Socialist Paradise (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Actually, i was thinking about Sweden, perhaps one of the most depressing countries I have ever visited. I also was employed with a certain large multinational corporation based in Sweden.
Gothenberg is a dump. Their stores are empty of goods, McDonalds cost an insane amount of money. It cost $15 for a Happy Meal.
I am from New York City, and I can say without a doubt, the subway system here is finitely better than anything available in Sweden. The trollies in Gothenberg were obviously from the 1950's, long before the vice grip of the socialist regime was put in place. We won't even get into the architecture. Gothenberg is a shining example of why post modernism sucks. Not having to endure such boring architecure alone is a great reason not to live there. Sweden looks like the country it is, a country that has raped their people of everything of value. All thats left is some decrepit transportation system and wretched modern buildings.
As far as Cuba. hey, if you want to go there by all means do so. I look forward to so some socialist swedes to tell me why their primitive country is so wonderful. What makes it so great to live there. I find no redeeming value in that hell hole. Its cold, the women look like they take steroids, the architecture makes me sick, the restaurants are outrageously expensive, the stores have no products to sell, and its overall a dirty nation. The worst part is the people, they are lazy, tired, and beaten down. They are a dying nation, desperate to keep their sick society alive.
Above poster is a troll, and I'll bite... (Score:1)
Oh please! You are either lying, or was severely ripped off.
I am Swedish, and there is a lot to say about this country. But the parent post seems rather trollish...
I mean, $15 for a happy meal for christs sake!
As for comparing New York with a city with roughly half a million people. Well, that's just plain stupid.
I will leave the rest of your troll uncommented, as it is not worth the time. I've already bitten and I hope you are satisfied.
Enjoy your $15 Happy Meal benzapp, and don't let people sell you any more bridges!
Btw. Gotenburg really is a dump, but that's just my opinion.
Stopping crime OT (Score:1)
lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Actually, the police do little to stop real crime (i'm not talking speeding tickets here i'm talking robberies, assault, murder, etc.). They are
little more than glorified paper pushers labeled as a deterrent. Basically you have to commit murder before any investigative part of the police
force is brought in. The local police where I live, always give the lame excuse that they are undermanned (even though there is like 1 cop per
100 people in the city). Its more like they are to busy enforcing traffic violations and petty civil issues (loud music, arresting people who haven't
paid their late tickets etc.) to do anything except show up and write an incident report when a real crime occurs.
I am apparently one of the few people who doesn't take the "we need more police" line seriously. More police != lower crime rate. Even
though that is usually the reason given to hire more. Instead I see 50 cops standing on street corners "showing presence" in groups of three or
so on a friday night when I go downtown to drink. Since, the town I live in is pretty laid back its rare to actually see them doing anything. Most
of the 'disturbances' probably occur in the bars which already have hired security there to check id's and deal with such problems.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have
a 99% of the population as a police force. Instead of the first instinct being "call the police!" the first instinct should be "lets go stop that!" Five
to ten minutes later when the police show up there is a good chance that the burglar has run off with a few valuable things, the rapist has
finished up and ran away, or the murderer is half way across town.
Re:Stopping crime OT (Score:2)
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force.
No, you have 99% of the population as an untrained armed mob. Would you really feel safer if you knew that every junkie, angry drunk, borderline sufferer of mental illness and road rage perpetrator you met was packing heat? Reducing crime by arming the whole population is like limiting the probability of nuclear war by giving everyone their own atom bomb!
Re:Stopping crime OT (Score:1)
If an angry mob (with or without guns take your pick, although I should point out most angry mobs in the US in the last few years were partially armed) were to attack your neighborhood. Would you want to have a gun to defend your home, wife and children? On the other hand you can call the police, and hope they can get though in time, or you can hope that you can escape from your house trailing your wife and children and hope that no one catches you, or your loved ones. Again, if you decide to run would you like to have a gun with you?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Is being lynched by a mob any worse than having a gang of cops shove a plunger up your ass, or being shot 42 times by the police on your way home from work?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Please don't do that. That's fraud and theft nothing more.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed.
Whose fault is it then? Mine? Yours? The evil corporation? If you want my taxpaying help to send your poor sorry corpse to the doctor at least have some grace about it.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
It might be free, if you don't count the fact that you're not. They are also usually out of many medicines so they don't have much to charge you for. Been there? Used it? Not with that opinion.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Much like the reference to lynch mobs as a fair and least extraordinary example of a populace capable of self-defense?
Out of curiousity, are you European or American?
I might answer that if you explain how the validity of an argument is affected by the nationality of the one making it.
Understanding Objectivists (Score:2)
You are citing real world examples. That isn't fair.
Objectivists have based their entire philosophy on Ayn Rand's fictional novels, of which The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are just two. This is in contrast to other schools of capitalist, socialist, and even communist thought, which, however flawed they may be, at least have insight enough to cite serious academic studies as the foundation of their ethos and philisophical views.
Does this mean a world view based upon a fictional work is false, or one based upon a scientific or academic study will yield better results? Not necessarilly, any more than we can know with certainty that science will yield a more accurate understanding of the universe than religion (of whatever flavor) will.
However, the vast majority of evidence is that science does yield better practical results than religious dogma, and rigorous academic studies more useful insights than works of fiction.
Having said all that, in Ayn Rand's defense (and I say this despite disagreeing with many of her assumptions and rather myopic views on a number of subjects), she was nowhere near as extreme as many of her adherents.
BTW - When I lived and worked in Germany I made two interesting observations:
1. German taxes were not significantly higher for middle and upper-middle income people there than they are in the United States, despite their having an excellent social net, including a form of socialized medicine (socialized via a strictly regulated insurance industry and policies paid for with public moneys for those who cannot afford the premiums), and
2. The healthcare I was provided there was vastly better than what I have in the United States, despite having one of the better PPOs currently available. The American system appears to be designed to subsidize high-end medical procedures, available generally only to the very wealthy or very well insured (two groups which are quickly becoming synonymous) through vastly higher costs for standard medical procedures (like getting a checkup or an allergy shot).
We in the United States pay three times as much for our less adequate healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world does for the "less effecient" socialized healthcare -- a fact which should put to rest once and for all the myth that the free market is always more effecient than a public works equivelent. In the area of healthcare, where the customer is captive by nature of the fact that without it they will suffer and possibly die, clearly the power of the customer to choose, or reject unacceptable conditions of service vs. the power of the provider to coerce or set their own conditions, is so degraded as to make a "free" marketplace in any meaningful sense impossible. This leaves corporate oligarchies and trusts vs. socialized medicine as the two real choices we face, and the experience of the entire developed world, outside of the united states, indicates that the socialized approach is vastly more effecient and effective.
Re:Understanding Objectivists (Score:1)
Anyways, most of the medical technology is coming from here, and people flock to the USA to cutting edge, "the best of the best" medical care, and whatnot. Sure it costs money. I'm not aware of a better place in the world to deal with cancers, heart diseases - if you can pay for it, or you get on a waiting list, but its here. I don't see rich Americans flock to other countries for "good medical care."
And judging on what most Canadians say about social medicine, I'll take my chances with American PPOs, I have little faith in western medicine, sure they can stop the bleeding. But fatal illnesses are a death sentence everywhere. The USA just capitalizes on it.
Want to live longer? The most high-aged demographic is Japan, the fish eating green tea drinking Okanawans. Is the economy collapsing under the huge stress of lots of old people around - sure is. Should we young ones sacrifice our disposable income in the better part of our lives to subsidize dying people? I don't know. If you are young, you are inclined to be austere towards old people who haven't properly prepared for their own death [a guaranteed eventuality] and somehow magically old and even though it happens to everyone and we all get old a decrepit its a sudden surprise and now that I'm old everyone must be responsible for me because its the right thing to do.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, the third world is growing, the first world is shrinking. I can't afford children, not here, not Germany, not anywhere, and I'm making over 3 times the average. Is part of this due to subsidy of old people? Sure is, 7% of my pay gone for people who didn't prepare for death. Do I expect to see any of that 7%? No, because of pseudo socialism from FDR, I pay for other people's retirement and I have to pay for my own, without the prospect of subsidy. . If I was bought long term bonds/bills for all that money I put in and couldn't touch them until retirement would I have a million in the bank already? Yes. It's a corrupt slush fund. If there was a lean mean government, this wouldn't happen. And if people have more disposable income, it has been proven that in times of great economic prosperity and low taxes philanthropy goes way up. Socialists and Volvo-bike-path-Liberals talk about high taxes and responsibility, but would they care for their own dying again parents or stuff them in a nursing home? No, they get nursing home every time. They just find peace with themselves because they washed their hands of the problem by voicing out against the machine or voting for some corrupt idiot that made people vote for him single issue.
I have also heard in Engine there are statues of limitations on medical care (same as lifetime and policy pay out limits in the USA). If you are over a certain age and you get dialysis for example, you can reach a lifetime social limit, and when the society's obligation is met, if you don't pay for dialysis, plug pulled, see ya.
I can't be convinced that if I really, really needed great care for a really hard to survive illness I would want to go anywhere but the top hospital in the USA.
Christopher Reeves finger now moves. He has a broken neck. He is a rich man, he has done well, and he is giving large sums of money to cure paralysis. I refuse to believe philanthropy doesn't exist in a pure capitalist system. It's the fake socialist stuff that causes issues.
Do I trust the medical system here? No. Do I base my opinion about the system on one doctor? No, when I have a problem, I see two or three doctors. Some of them suck, some of them do great. Do I think every patient should get an MRI for every hospital visit? Yes! Is that going to cost something? YES! But here in America, I still have enough disposable cash to get the MRI, a full body scan, head scan and virtual colonoscopy is about $1000. Do they give MRIs and complete blood work if you are "paranoid" in your said country? I have been paranoid, I'm somewhat of a hypochondriac, and I have gotten complete blood work and an MRI at little cost to myself. The peace of mind is great.
I know from a friend who came from Europe what happens. Ever sniffle, sneeze cough drip-drop gastrointestinal pain costs the medical systems in the EU lots of money. Subsidized health care and social security is a huge portion of the budget in the EU nations. Do I see people here trying to find ways to retire in Sweden and burden their youth with their age and "retire in style" and get all this free shit? No. In fact, I see a lot of people here who love life, like Christopher Reeve, who advocate for a cause, and raise philanthropic (read: op in feel good money not forced tax money) interest in a cause for the love of life and liberty.
I just don't like the idea of some person's conception of the ideal being forcibly manifested. I may live in Canada, New Zealand or somewhere else someday as I am the firm believer in "don't like it? LEAVE." I haven't found a compelling reason to leave yet. I know Bush sounds silly, and Ashcroft is a fascist, and American Geopolitical policy isn't the greatest (we are not good, nor evil just as no other countries are good, nor evil, they just *ARE*, the exist, and they have a survival instincts and playing fair is back seated to survival), and the US-Reichstag may have burned, or it may have not, but if the Reichstag has burned, metaphorically, then I will live out my years somewhere else. But not for health care. For freedom.
Now don't believe the hype about the US either. If you are not fucking stupid and lazy, you can pick up a decent job for the government or an education system, with awesome retirement plans and health care, maternity leave, continuing education, education subsidy, you name it, the welfares for the taking. I find it amusing that most people who leverage this best are smart, or not from this country - they immigrate here, and they *never* leave [not that I have seen], and most of my proximal friends right now are foreign. But seriously, government jobs here are such government cheese, and if you like the Socialist way, work for the government. It's really not hard. Every single DMV, Police Station Employees (not the cops per se), City Hall, Court Clerks, Libraries, Military personnel, Government Contractors, tax exempt non profit companies and generally anyone who isn't working for a for profit business are living the great life - and having brains and working there are not mutually inclusive.
The Enron anti-free-market argument (Score:2)
A lot of the problems with the recent Enron and WorldCom, etc. scandals were caused BY government regulation. That is, government regulation that was being written by the very companies it was supposed to control.
Corrupt and biased regulation is far, far worse than no regulation at all. The Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lays of the world may claim to lay their alllegiance at the feet of the free market, but a system where the ground rules are written and rewritten by the biggest players to ensure their own profits is far from a free market.
In theory, government regulation would be fair and impartial to all competitors. But then, in theory communism works too. The real world is quite a bit different.
Capitalism is ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
In what theory is capitalism ethical? Nothing in my readings has any statements about an ethical dimension.
> Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment? How is this different to the "socialist" case?
> You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
Re:Capitalism is ethical? (Score:1)
Re:Capitalism is ethical? (Score:1)
In the same moral theory that is behind the idea freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the words "all Men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is the moral theory under which capitalism is ethical.
Something tells me that you've heard about these theories before, but just that you didn't make the connection that they have to capitalism.
The three fundamental rights of every man are Life, Liberty and Property. Justice is defined as the enforcement of these rights. The only extent to which your fundamental rights can be deprived is to protect the fundamental rights of everyone, including yourself. For example, it is moral to force people to pay taxes (deprive them of property) to pay for police and military, which will protect the rights of everybody from thugs and foreign invaders. In the case of life and property, when I say that government should "protect" them, I mean that government should "keep other people from physically taking away your freedom to create and preserve your own property and life." The only economic system the stems from the recognition of these rights is capitalism. Socialism and Communism are especially immoral because they outright deny the existence of property as a right. Anarchism is wrong because it does not take any steps to protect these rights.
There you have it: a crash coarse in why capitalism is the only ethical and moral economic system. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
>As opposed to chanting "Government can't solve my problems" or "Only the market can solve my problems"?
I would say chant "Everyone can solve his own problems"
>So what happens if I have cancer, but no money for treatment?
The same thing that happens when you want an iPod and you don't have enough money-- you can choose to do with out the iPod or appeal to others for assistance, which they may or may not choose to give you. In the case of the iPod, other people are probably not going to find your need very important, but I bet that if you had cancer, people would be much more likely to help you. There are free voluntary charity organizations for things like that. You're probably going to say , "there isn't enough private money to help all the people with cancer," and to that I would say: "tough." It is not one of your fundamental rights to get cancer treatment (see the bold part of the my third paragraph). It is everyone's right to choose how to manage the products of his own mind (property). You don't have a right to force others to give up their property no matter how pressing your need is (unless your need is the protection of one of your fundamental rights).
-Andrew
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Where the hell have you been going to find such a mis-managed public health care system?
I waited one week for non-emergency surgery to clear a blockage to one of my kidneys. Had it been an emergency (like an organ I don't have a backup of...
I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger
You can't defend yourself when a criminal carries one too and realizes you've got one as well... so then shoots you in the back before rifling through the pockets on your slowly-cooling corpse.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
This is precisely why successful countries you might call "socialist", aren't socialist at all. They, in fact, compromise.
My country, for example...
Welfare is a bad, self-destructive idea. Much better to put these people to work doing highway construction, cleanup, etc... Whatever they're capable of doing for their "work-fare" cheques. The work is hard enough and pays little enough that they WILL try to get a real job. We won't let them starve to death, but we aren't going to let them have a free ride either.
Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Government can't solve all problems, but it can solve some. It's stupid to give government free reign, and it's just as stupid to abolish it entirely.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
The blockage wasn't going to kill the tissue, otherwise that would have been an emergency.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
In fact it was like this in Britain with the fire brigades. Each fire brigade was owned by an insurance company and they would fight a fire in your house only if your house was insure by the appropriate insurance company, while letting the fire burn your neighbour's house. This crazy system was later replaced by local/national governement controls.
Another area where governements are necessary is pollution control. The private electricity industry in the US pollutes (proportionally) 6 times more than the (previoulsy or still) state owned electricity industry in Europe. This is a staggering number.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2, Insightful)
It might not be that way with a head injury... but it's that way with AIDS patients in lots of cities. Not to mention those needing an organ donation. And lots of other cases since the HMO's became popular.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Like law enforcement?
Like rescue services?
LIKE PHONE SERVICE? "I'm sorry, but your account is past due -- no service for you. If you pay us all of the access charges, universal service charges, 911 charges, number portability charges, in addition to our wildy overpriced monthy rate, we'll be happy to restore your poor-quality analog line. Wonderful.
We subsidize certain services (Police Fire, sometimes health care) as a matter of public policy. Why should we subsidize a nice-to-have-but-not-essential service if it wasn't a public service to begin with, especially if it impairs the adoption of better technology that would probably cost less than the crap we have now? Investors bought telco stocks and bonds, knowing that certain risks were involved, premature obsolescense being damn near the top of the list.
For the most part, the US economic system does a wonderful job of purging itself of obsolete companies. The death of such companies creates opportunities for better competitors.
We think nothing of closing a factory and moving it to Mexico or China in search of cheap labor; how is this any different? It's tragic for individuals in the short run, but in the long run, we're all better off when people migrate to more competitive industries. If the telcos have to die anyway, get it over with. If we grant European-style subsidies to every industry that has a problem, we'll have sky-high unemployement, and a reduced standard of living (like the Europeans do). Once everyone is getting a subsidy, the tax burden will choke off any possibility of economic growith.
My retirement plan may be adversely impacted by the telcos demise, but it will have time to bounce back. Having subsidized telcos won't change my expectation that they will continue as a underperforming investment. Thanks, Uncle Sam, but no thanks.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I do, however, consider it a fundamental function of a state to provide reliable and affordable health care, education, transportation and welfare to all. Those who have plenty, should give to those who are in need; thus progressive taxation. These strategic functions should not be privatized. Competition would perhaps drive the costs down, but the lowest bidder isn't always the best option for critical services.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
John Doe makes $100,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $10,000
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Bravo (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? sugarbitch !! (Score:0)
Real Market Forces (Score:2)
Give me a second to go call the media so the people in this town can get all riled up and come and firebomb your hospital... oh, or what were you saying about treatment?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)