Topic: Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"? - page 7. (Read 10197 times)

Even a social darwinist like yourself must have heard of taxes by now.

I guess you want me to say it: they will have to increase some taxes. Perhaps a tax on petrol? this would encourage people to buy cleaner cars and it would make the US less vulnerable to changes in the price of oil.

easy those that have money. Marxism 101.

Who will be paying for those state-run hospitals and who pays the private hospitals for the national health insurance?

private insurance, you want it you have it. you don't have it, you will pay, later... but at least we have a debt for the service provided.

I will try to find the "efficientest" way to reply by only addressing the first part. To keep will peope alive if/when they get struck by a serious disease, you have to have regulation in place that already tilts the pool table. The health care sector needs to be well regulated in order to fill its role.  But why don´t you tea baggers focus on some of the truly destructive anti-free market practices in the US? The US almost lost their entire car industry because protectionist practices made them uncompetitive. Chrysler is now owned by FIAT!!!! The auto industry is only the most visible case, you will find many, many other areas where the introduction of some free market forces could do much more good than leaving sick people in the dust.

those monkeys have always a problem to understand how the efficientest ressources allocation is only possible on a free market, composed of free individual, bond by the moral conduct of a coming death, and free to look for information, to be able to make individually the best possible choice for themselves, and such provide the most diverse set of solution to problems. Remember piece of trash, the known unknown, and the unknown unknown. The Free United Swarm vs the Hive mind.  

a bozealot is a barack Obama zealot. it's someone generally who take into account the color of the skin of the person. Do you think that barack could have a single chance on a electric forum? LoL, Michelle on the other hand...

Edit: I think in fact they know that what they want isn't the most efficient allocation of resources, but to control a inefficient allocation they think will lead them to have more... with such men we would still be in caves.

I agree with you to a large degree but health care is political, it shouldn´t be something you choose away. And in the case of health care all the data suggests that universal health care is much cheaper than nearly universal health care. You will find corruption costs in the private sector as well, and this varies from country to country and sector to sector.

Again, please show me how I can get paid for this twaddle.

No it isn´t code word for anything, it is a more precise term for what you call "working higher up the ladder of servitude". And most people want to get to get "higher up the ladder of servitude" because it means they can give themselves and the people they love more of what they want in life. And so do you unless you´re an anarchist (and remember, every anarchist is a socialist).

If the WH wants to pay me they are welcome to do so, and I don´t know what a bozealot is. Boozed up zealot?

I got a feeling the paid shills are going to get a lot more prevalent in the next year....

The State invests money in the wrong places because it invests for political reasons. Also it spends more than a private entity would have and there are corruptions costs

First of all: You ARE second class, third class and no class (dead or dying) in the pre-obama system.


But to answer your main question. There is no good reason why the state should, under normal circumstances, build cars, planes, boats, make petrol, build houses, grow vegetables, herd cows, etc. Power plants could also be privately owned and run, nor does phone companies or ISPs need to be state owned. Producers of fertilizers, oil companies, computer manufacturers, software developers, mineral mines,  I can´t go through it all here but there is plenty of space left for a fiery entrepreneur as yourself. You can even build a windmill if you want.

[I´m sorry, but this organ donor thing... what do you mean? If you are dead and you are an organ donor why do you care? And if they kill you because you are an organ donor, surely that will be controversial in any system. Why should you die rather than the guy who needs a donor? Are you afraid Obama himself is going to get hurt and they will just gun you down because you´re an organ donor? This is really toasting my thinker.]

social mobility is a code word for working higher up the ladder of servitude. Nothing else. I don't think anyone landed on Omaha beach for this future. We all preferred to smoke weed on a beach listening to a guitar, but send to Vietnam we were. btw I hope you get paid for your posts, from the wh directly? or just a bozealot?

That´s another weird thing. The state isn´t "them" or "the others". In a democracy it is "us" through our elected representatives. And you americans recently voted in a bunch of populist you-know-whats to take charge of congress. Now they are what you call "them" as if they are the enemy. You voted those dimwits in, take some blimming responsibility for your actions! The only reason you as a white male feel victimized is because you keep electing republican politicians who will sabotage any initiative to improve social mobility in "The Land of Opportunities". Blacks and native americans aren´t trying to take back what your great³ grandfather did, nor is YOUR government. That is just some nonsense some cowards came up with because the truth hurts too much. In Europe most other european countries´ tourist boards are bombarded by complaints by germans who feel offended by all the WW2 memorials they find in all the tourist pamphlets. It happened, deal with it!

nationalize everything! it's fucking pathetic... so what is left to the market? feeding the politicians what they want? Always remember you will never be on the same queue as barack or his children, you will always be a second class citizen in his system. It's the fucking truth... and if they need an organ or what ever from you (because you are the sole donor available), suicide is safer.

Perhaps, but cost saving elsewhere in the system means that France and Canada uses a third less than the US of their GDP on health care. And EVERYONE gets health care.

you have to pay the rest of your life and the one of your offspring for the sins that your great great great grand father did during the slavery. As such everything you own belong to the state to repair this terrible prejudice (that's the narrative) the truth is they (aka gov) want your money, they know better how to spend than you.

Most countries force you to buy some kind of car insurance to make sure that you can cover the costs if you screw up. If you get a treatable illness and don´t have health insurance it can have seriously adverse consequences for you, your family and/or your community. Not to mention that if enough people are without coverage it will eventually have a seriously negative effect on that nations GDP. 

When you ask "is it moral[?]" you can view it from a utilitarian point of view: definitely, everyone is better off. A kantian view: Well, it is by no means tyrannical and every individual is morally obliged to get some kind of coverage out of respect for their own life and the lives of others. An aristotelian view: It is not keeping anyone from being virtuous, to not have a coverage is not brave, it is foolhardy or just plane dumb.

I suspect however that what you need to know is if it is necessary from the viewpoint of the political theory of classical liberalism (americans might know it as libertarianism because you think you invented it). Here is where it gets tricky. Yes and no, die hard purists will claim that anything that comes in the way of the invisible hand makes society less efficient. Why this should apply to the US is beyond me. The US of A, although proudly capitalist, is not a particularly liberal country. Just about every sector is subsidized, shielded with protectionist trade barriers or otherwise blissfully safe from the fiddlings of the invisible hand. Most modern liberals (referred to, by some, as social liberals) will concede that much of early classical thinking is not well suited to a modern society and that a society where the majority is part of the upper middle class the benefits of everyone being covered by some kind of health care plan far outweighs the negative bits.

However, classical liberals (libertarians) are not very well represented in american politics. The main explanation for why "Obamacare" is seen as such a disaster is because GOP wants to paint it that way. Why? 1. Because after Bush Jr. they need to make people think that the democrats and their president is somehow worse. 2. Because Obama represents the kind of social liberalism that roughly 90% of GOP voters would benefit immensely from, and if they realize this then the GOP is doomed. When Billy Ray Junior The Third stands on the barricade screaming his lounges off for the right to remain uninsured he is either too dumb to even operate a door or he is being manipulated(or both).

Correct; when there is a State run insurance, the cost is around twice as much as when it's the private sector running it for the same or lower reimbursements, look at Canada and France