Obama New Health Care Plan

Mar 2009
2,187
2
#1
Obama has just announced that Congress is working on a New Health Care Plan that will make it compulsory for everyone in the United States to have Health Care Insurance. Those who already have Health Care Insurance can elect to keep their Insurance. Those who can't afford the insurance will be carried by the Government. What do you think about this?

 
Jan 2009
639
2
#2
I'll hold my tongue for the most part until I see the final version.

One plan of his wasn't too bad. It would have it that people could buy into medicare through a subsidized price structure. Only the truly poor would be getting a free ride. It would also probably revitalize the low-cost healthcare market (that disappeared for a variety of reasons). That seems like the more likely one to actually make it through Congress.

Seems a little extreme and far to costly though if he actually does through with it. We are barely going to be balanced in the next few years unless there is a full recover in the economy. Even then, we'd only see a $1 trillion surplus (using the most optimistic estimates). So...yeah. Don't think this would have a chance of working without a major shift.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#3
So...yeah. Don't think this would have a chance of working without a major shift.
Agreed. Obama would have to get the socialism sorted out first before the medical insurance will work out. At the time when Canada brought it in (just after WW2) it already was a great challenge. Wonder what kinds of scams there will be. Probably good now to get into the business of selling medical insurance in the US? :)
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#4
Yes, it will cost a lot. But don't you think it'd be worth keeping those with smaller incomes that can't afford insurance, are unemployed, or whose insurance is not included in employment healthy? It's poorer people who need medical care, after all, not the generally more healthy wealthy people. If it costs a lot, does that not signify it is meeting a need?
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#5
Yes, it will cost a lot. But don't you think it'd be worth keeping those with smaller incomes that can't afford insurance, are unemployed, or whose insurance is not included in employment healthy? It's poorer people who need medical care, after all, not the generally more healthy wealthy people. If it costs a lot, does that not signify it is meeting a need?
Just give us poor folk the dang money so we can be wealthy. I don't want health care. I want a motorcycle.
 
Jan 2013
316
1
Delaware
#6
Seems a little extreme and far to costly though if he actually does through with it. We are barely going to be balanced in the next few years unless there is a full recover in the economy. Even then, we'd only see a $1 trillion surplus (using the most optimistic estimates). So...yeah. Don't think this would have a chance of working without a major shift.
Agreed, as it currently stands it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. The Republicans have already said that they won't even consider the solution as it currently is.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#7
Just give us poor folk the dang money so we can be wealthy. I don't want health care. I want a motorcycle.
I want health care! I have no idea what i would do if it weren't for the NHS!

What if you're a poor diabetic?

I am also very happy that the UK has a system where the very young, Old Age Pensioners and poor get prescriptions for free. It has helped and saved millions.

Of course that's not to say i don't like motorcycles...

But if you're poor, you wouldn't have to pay so much tax (presuming you have a vaguely fair taxation system over there). And you would get healthcare for free. Or, objectively speaking, a lot less than paying directly for it.

Therefore, you'd have more funds available to buy your motorcycle if you did have a national healthcare system.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#8
I want health care! I have no idea what i would do if it weren't for the NHS!

What if you're a poor diabetic?

I am also very happy that the UK has a system where the very young, Old Age Pensioners and poor get prescriptions for free. It has helped and saved millions.

Of course that's not to say i don't like motorcycles...

But if you're poor, you wouldn't have to pay so much tax (presuming you have a vaguely fair taxation system over there). And you would get healthcare for free. Or, objectively speaking, a lot less than paying directly for it.

Therefore, you'd have more funds available to buy your motorcycle if you did have a national healthcare system.
My wife is a poor diabetic! She has 15 stints because when they did her double bypass she almost died. She has had at least 4 heart attacks, at least 6 strokes. And yes I had the hell sued out of me for the bills. But if they gave me the money I could have paid the bills and had a motorcycle too. As for me, I don't really need health care. My doctor already has the paperwork. DNR and a notarized statement that if I am unconscious pain control is all I get. Not even fluids. That way I know I will not get trapped on a machine for 20 years. With no fluids I should be gone in a couple of weeks.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#9
Dirk- if people had to pay less taxes and companies had less regulations and taxes on them, don't you think they would be able to pay for healthcare themselves? Think about it- with a more competitive healthcare market (which would bring down prices,) and drastically reduced taxes, companies would hire more people and pay them more and people would have more money in their pockets. The socialized healthcare arguers often seem to forget that nationalized programs still cost as much, if not more due to the reduced competitiveness in the market and are at the same time less responsive to the consumer.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#10
Dirk- if people had to pay less taxes and companies had less regulations and taxes on them, don't you think they would be able to pay for healthcare themselves? Think about it- with a more competitive healthcare market (which would bring down prices,) and drastically reduced taxes, companies would hire more people and pay them more and people would have more money in their pockets. The socialized healthcare arguers often seem to forget that nationalized programs still cost as much, if not more due to the reduced competitiveness in the market and are at the same time less responsive to the consumer.
You cannot treat vital medical treatment as a business! It is just not ethical. Nationalisation is inefficient and expensive to maintain effectively. That means that we need to do this a new way. I'm not in favour of giving any big power to central Government either - but to say that capitalist businesses with very little dimension for public control take near-absolute power over the people of the United States is absolutely unacceptable.

A solution? A thoroughly decentralised national healthcare system, semi-independent, apart from local Government funding. Run by an elected worker's soviet, with high accountability, absolute transparency. The local level would mean the employment would be local and keeping close contact with the community, as well as being semi-independent from other hospitals. This would mean that local needs would be a first priority, while other hospitals are still available to supply emergency medical equipment. This would enhance efficiency by a considerable length. It would also make it far more democratically accountable to the people directly affected by it.

- Private hospitals tend to employ fewer people to save costs on staff and so could be short in an emergency situation.

- The building of vitally placed hospitals could be delayed or even stopped if the private firm thinks it unprofitable.

- A private institution is run for profit, not for the good of one's fellow humankind.

- Standards cannot be effectively policed or regulated and so the public has little chance of influencing the quality of service.

- To be healthy is a fundamental human right - even the UN recognises the right to life.

- It is simply morally wrong to deny a person healthcare on an individual fiscal basis, and it is the poor that cannot afford insurance.

- Statistically speaking, it is actually cheaper for the Government to run a universal healthcare system. (I think we'd all like to see a tax cut for American workers).

Commonwealth Fund said:
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times.
I am also highly concerned about this, which might have something to do with the previous point:

Dr. Marcia Angell said:
Roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.
In conclusion, i'll stick to my guns, thanks.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#11
Dirk, I think the first point that I really have to clear up is about what we free market healthcare people want: we want the same thing you want, which an affordable, and efficient healthcare system for the people. We are not only thinking about profits here, you need to realize that, so the moral argument really doesn't suffice here because we both want what is best for the people. The left seems to forget this a lot and blames the right for only caring about the rich, which is not true.

Second, the private sector is made up of the people and businesses. Everyone who is not in government is part of the private sector- it is not just the corporations. The laws of economics clearly show that consumers have a large effect on things such as market price, especially when there is a lot of market competition. What we free market healthcare people want is more competition, which would be created by reducing regulations and taxes on the healthcare market. The United States' current healthcare market is one of the, if not the most regulated markets in this nation and it is far from free. Government favors certain parts of the markets and this is what creates problems such as those with the insurance companies. If the government were to just leave them alone, the consumers would have more power in their hands, there would be more competition, and prices would be lower.

Now on to your specific points. You say that private hospitals may hire less than public hospitals, but what is wrong with that? They should only hire what is necessary and considering that public hospitals would mean tremendous market distortions and deadweight losses in other markets, the market with private hospitals would almost certainly have more jobs available than the market with public hospitals.

On to the vitally placed hospitals- again this is all going to be a measure of demand. If there are a lot of sick patients in an area and no hospital near by, then of course a private company would go there because they could make money and at the same time these patients would get a closer hospital. Making money should not be demonized because it often produces other socially beneficial outcomes with it. Now look at this circumstance from a government perspective, especially in times like these. With deficits like never seen before many states and local governments are currently being forced to cut spending and there is very little chance they would build new hospitals right now because they can't afford it. The private sector, on the other hand, is composed of millions of people and there is a much higher chance that someone with capital will build a hospital even in tough times because they know the profit oppurtunity is there.

A private institution may be run for profit, but that doesn't mean it isn't efficient. Looking at history, private institutions have always been more efficient and tended better to the consumer than the government. Look at the government and the businesses it runs such as the DMV and look at the horrible service it has there opposed to private businesses.

You say standards can not be effected by the consumer, but that is very wrong. Consumers are part of the private sector and in free markets they have more direct power because there is more competition and they can simply leave an institution they are not happy with or boycott it instead of going through the middleman government and the [FONT=&quot] bureaucracy that comes with it. The private sector is a lot more tentative to the people's needs and it is a lot more efficient at meeting them when they are really needed.

[FONT=&quot] No one is saying anything against the right to life. As I explained earlier, you think the government would provide it in the best way, we think the free market would.

Competition and a free market system would be able to bring prices low enough that most people would be able to afford it. If taxes and such were further reduced, there would also be an increase in philanthropy and the private sector would be able to take care of those that still can't afford it. Anyway, government run healthcare often comes with longer wait times and lower quality of healthcare, which leads to worse treatment and more patient deaths than a free market system.

- Statistically speaking, it is actually cheaper for the Government to run a universal healthcare system. (I think we'd all like to see a tax cut for American workers).
Can you give me proof behind this claim? Considering the deadweight losses, the regulations, the bureaucracy costs, and production losses, it can't be lower than a free market system. You need to look at the big picture of what such plans do.

As for the quotation from the Commonwealth Fund and the doctor, again we don't like the current system. Why do you think we have those intermediaries? Not because the free market chooses to have them (look at any real free market and you never see such private bureaucracy,) but because government policy favors these institutions.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#12
Dirk, I think the first point that I really have to clear up is about what we free market healthcare people want: we want the same thing you want, which an affordable, and efficient healthcare system for the people. We are not only thinking about profits here, you need to realize that, so the moral argument really doesn't suffice here because we both want what is best for the people. The left seems to forget this a lot and blames the right for only caring about the rich, which is not true.
When the chips are down, you'll find that it's profit the capitalist businesses want, not to help people. And there is more potential for giving up dosh among the bourgeoisie.

Second, the private sector is made up of the people and businesses. Everyone who is not in government is part of the private sector- it is not just the corporations. The laws of economics clearly show that consumers have a large effect on things such as market price, especially when there is a lot of market competition. What we free market healthcare people want is more competition, which would be created by reducing regulations and taxes on the healthcare market. The United States' current healthcare market is one of the, if not the most regulated markets in this nation and it is far from free. Government favors certain parts of the markets and this is what creates problems such as those with the insurance companies. If the government were to just leave them alone, the consumers would have more power in their hands, there would be more competition, and prices would be lower.
This is partially true. But the free market is economic theory. It simply cannot work without intervention from the Government, which is why it is flawed. Prices would likely be higher, as there would be no checks against monopolies and oligopolies.

What you advocate is to put businesses into direct control. You presume that they will be controlled by the market. But what stops them from attempting to manipulate the market? I advocate putting the people in direct control.

Now on to your specific points. You say that private hospitals may hire less than public hospitals, but what is wrong with that? They should only hire what is necessary and considering that public hospitals would mean tremendous market distortions and deadweight losses in other markets, the market with private hospitals would almost certainly have more jobs available than the market with public hospitals.
What is wrong with it? Fewer people being employed, means a decrement of individual fiscal security for those that would otherwise be employed.

On to the vitally placed hospitals- again this is all going to be a measure of demand. If there are a lot of sick patients in an area and no hospital near by, then of course a private company would go there because they could make money and at the same time these patients would get a closer hospital. Making money should not be demonized because it often produces other socially beneficial outcomes with it. Now look at this circumstance from a government perspective, especially in times like these. With deficits like never seen before many states and local governments are currently being forced to cut spending and there is very little chance they would build new hospitals right now because they can't afford it. The private sector, on the other hand, is composed of millions of people and there is a much higher chance that someone with capital will build a hospital even in tough times because they know the profit oppurtunity is there.
There is a lot less profit opportunity in a poor community that cannot afford vast healthcare costs, for an American example, out in the Deep South somewhere.

A private institution may be run for profit, but that doesn't mean it isn't efficient. Looking at history, private institutions have always been more efficient and tended better to the consumer than the government. Look at the government and the businesses it runs such as the DMV and look at the horrible service it has there opposed to private businesses.
It is not that it isn't efficient. A lot of the time, it is. But your current system has a considerable private beauracracy, as you say, which makes it not cost efficient. However, with a transparent system, that is run by the people, for the people, as opposed to by the Government (supposedly) "for the people", or businesses - for themselves, there is a lot less potential for corruption.

You say standards can not be effected by the consumer, but that is very wrong. Consumers are part of the private sector and in free markets they have more direct power because there is more competition and they can simply leave an institution they are not happy with or boycott it instead of going through the middleman government and the [FONT=&quot] bureaucracy that comes with it. The private sector is a lot more tentative to the people's needs and it is a lot more efficient at meeting them when they are really needed.
I did not suggest that they cannot be affected, i said that the consumer has a reduced power over it. I do not deny that the consumer in the market has power of a business, as does, to a lesser extent, a potential consumer. However, nationalised healthcare would mean that it is run for the people and would, therefore, in theory, be more responsive to demands. In my system, to put the people in direct democratic control (actually of all public services) of healthcare means that this power would be greatly enhanced, and there would be a considerable increment of accountability to the people.

[FONT=&quot]
No one is saying anything against the right to life. As I explained earlier, you think the government would provide it in the best way, we think the free market would.
You're half-right, half-wrong. You seem to have my intentions confused. I agree that we have (possibly equal, who knows) different views of how a healthcare system should be run. However, i do not think that thew Government should run it, but that the people should run it. The worker's soviet in charge of this service is democratically run by the people and is independent from the Government. Apart from funding. But this is a set up that makes it easy to put services under full control (in all ways) to the people, when the state is no longer required. That is one of my reasons. The other is that it is more ethical to give the people direct control over their own healthcare, on a very local level.

[FONT=&quot]
Competition and a free market system would be able to bring prices low enough that most people would be able to afford it. If taxes and such were further reduced, there would also be an increase in philanthropy and the private sector would be able to take care of those that still can't afford it. Anyway, government run healthcare often comes with longer wait times and lower quality of healthcare, which leads to worse treatment and more patient deaths than a free market system.

Can you give me proof behind this claim? Considering the deadweight losses, the regulations, the bureaucracy costs, and production losses, it can't be lower than a free market system. You need to look at the big picture of what such plans do.
Okay, as an example of these systems, i'm going to use the UK's healthcare system. For the nationalised, pre-1979. For the capitalist (not wuite free market, i'm afraid), the 1980s, when healthcare was run as a business.

Longer wait times - true. However, my system works on a local level. This increases efficiency considerably (in theory, of course).

Lower quality of healthcare - false. The capitalist-run system had far inferior services. To be more cost-efficient, and thus maximise profits, hospitals only had minimal stocks of emergency equipment, and minimal emergency staff, which meant a lot of people who went into A&E, didn't come out without a toe-tag. I have a humanitarian view. I want a system where more people will live. I see that system as a different one to the one you see.

As for the quotation from the Commonwealth Fund and the doctor, again we don't like the current system. Why do you think we have those intermediaries? Not because the free market chooses to have them (look at any real free market and you never see such private bureaucracy,) but because government policy favors these institutions.
This is true, i digress on that part. Keep in mind that there will be little power to control a beauracracy either way if it is run without intervention. This is a major flaw of capitalism as a whole. As you may guess, i do not think the Government should be very powerful.

In conclusion, you seem to have a view that somehow, a system that runs on the basis of greed will somehow create a balance (unlikely, in realistic terms), and also that it will work, almost on a secondary level, for the good of mankind (also questionable). Also, you presume that without Government intervention, the system will somehow work better with no controls over monopolies, no controls over oligopolies, no controls over the formation of cartels. You appear to be of the belief that this will somehow increase efficiency quality of service, whether we are talking of healthcare or anything else. In taking the system of free-market capitalism as your ideal, you take all of its flaws, also, whether in economic form, or otherwise.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#13
When the chips are down, you'll find that it's profit the capitalist businesses want, not to help people. And there is more potential for giving up dosh among the bourgeoisie.
There is nothing wrong with profit. In a free market, everyone represents and vouches for what they want. It is the true free society and it is also the fair society. You need to remember that without the common people the bourgeoisie are nothing and without government help, they need to listen to the people or they risk failure. Free markets meano no subsidies and no bailouts- they need the people to make money.


This is partially true. But the free market is economic theory. It simply cannot work without intervention from the Government, which is why it is flawed. Prices would likely be higher, as there would be no checks against monopolies and oligopolies.
This is a common misconception. The only way a monopoly would exist if it is satisfying consumers and if it is doing that, then is there any harm in it? If it is just taking advantage of people, a new competitor is bound to arise as people search for new alternatives. That new competitor would arise from the profit motive- again profit can be very good socially as well.

What you advocate is to put businesses into direct control. You presume that they will be controlled by the market. But what stops them from attempting to manipulate the market? I advocate putting the people in direct control.
That is the thing- I am not saying put the businesses in control. I am saying put the private sector in control and that is everyone- that is the people. Government in control does not equal the people in control- the private sector in control does. I am not saying business should control the market, I am saying the whole private sector- both consumers and producers would control it through a natural system of checks and balances which are governed by the key economic principles such as supply and demand- principles which every economic theory recognizes, whether it is Keynesian or Austrian.

What is wrong with it? Fewer people being employed, means a decrement of individual fiscal security for those that would otherwise be employed.
You need to look at the whole picture here. Sure, the hospitals may hire less, but the overall employment rate in the market will be higher because public hospitals run at production losses to the rest of the market which means lower jobs- a job reduction which is greater than that which public hospitals create.


There is a lot less profit opportunity in a poor community that cannot afford vast healthcare costs, for an American example, out in the Deep South somewhere.
Are you saying these people don't need healthcare? Of course they do and with that there is profit motive- it all just comes down to accounting costs.

It is not that it isn't efficient. A lot of the time, it is. But your current system has a considerable private beauracracy, as you say, which makes it not cost efficient. However, with a transparent system, that is run by the people, for the people, as opposed to by the Government (supposedly) "for the people", or businesses - for themselves, there is a lot less potential for corruption.
That private bureaucracy is driven by the government. The idea that American healthcare is currently in a free market is VERY WRONG. The government already has tons of regulations and taxes on the market- more than almost any other market in this nation. As for corruption, with small government and a healthcare market that is not part of government, there is no reason for gov't officials to give in to lobbyists and such. Free markets reduce corruption- big governments increase it.

I did not suggest that they cannot be affected, i said that the consumer has a reduced power over it. I do not deny that the consumer in the market has power of a business, as does, to a lesser extent, a potential consumer. However, nationalised healthcare would mean that it is run for the people and would, therefore, in theory, be more responsive to demands. In my system, to put the people in direct democratic control (actually of all public services) of healthcare means that this power would be greatly enhanced, and there would be a considerable increment of accountability to the people.
How exactly do you propose putting them in direct control? That is very unrealistic. And also, as the current situation in Detroit shows, putting too much power on either side- consumer, producer, or worker- is dangerous because whoever has the power takes advantage of others. Why not let the free market balances counter each other?

You're half-right, half-wrong. You seem to have my intentions confused. I agree that we have (possibly equal, who knows) different views of how a healthcare system should be run. However, i do not think that thew Government should run it, but that the people should run it. The worker's soviet in charge of this service is democratically run by the people and is independent from the Government. Apart from funding. But this is a set up that makes it easy to put services under full control (in all ways) to the people, when the state is no longer required. That is one of my reasons. The other is that it is more ethical to give the people direct control over their own healthcare, on a very local level.
Oh, so you are against gov't healthcare? So you should be against Obama's plan shouldn't you? As for direct control to the people, again how do you propose that? The most practical way is really free markets and that way the people don't take advantage of corporations and cause them to fail and corporations don't take advantage of people and cause them to suffer.

Okay, as an example of these systems, i'm going to use the UK's healthcare system. For the nationalised, pre-1979. For the capitalist (not wuite free market, i'm afraid), the 1980s, when healthcare was run as a business.
Longer wait times - true. However, my system works on a local level. This increases efficiency considerably (in theory, of course).

Lower quality of healthcare - false. The capitalist-run system had far inferior services. To be more cost-efficient, and thus maximise profits, hospitals only had minimal stocks of emergency equipment, and minimal emergency staff, which meant a lot of people who went into A&E, didn't come out without a toe-tag. I have a humanitarian view. I want a system where more people will live. I see that system as a different one to the one you see.
Well just as you said, it wasn't quite a free market even when they labelled it "capitalist." People get nervous about leaving something like healthcare to the "free market" because they think the companies will run wild, but the truth is that consumers actually have more controls in free markets than they do now in the United States.

In conclusion, you seem to have a view that somehow, a system that runs on the basis of greed will somehow create a balance (unlikely, in realistic terms), and also that it will work, almost on a secondary level, for the good of mankind (also questionable). Also, you presume that without Government intervention, the system will somehow work better with no controls over monopolies, no controls over oligopolies, no controls over the formation of cartels. You appear to be of the belief that this will somehow increase efficiency quality of service, whether we are talking of healthcare or anything else. In taking the system of free-market capitalism as your ideal, you take all of its flaws, also, whether in economic form, or otherwise.
The idea that we need government in markets was created by governments as a means to have more power. History and the laws of economics are on my side, even if my views may seem absurd to those who do not understand economics (not saying you don't- this is just in general.) We have tried various levels of government interference in healthcare in recent history and we have always had big problems. We have never tried the free market. Just compare the record of free markets in other markets (outside of health) as opposed to state-intervened ones and the stats will speak for themselves. The idea that profit=greed is simply rhetoric. A large part of this negative conontation is driven by the left-wing and big government people. In reality, profits are not bad and greed should not be viewed as negative in the market because if everyone was self-interested (which they are anyway,) and no one had excessive control over others, the market would be able to solve problems and meet demands a lot faster- not to mention be more productive. Seeking profits does not equal being evil.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#14
Evil is subjective. I am not accusing anyone of being evil.

I believe i have already mentioned a system for putting the people in direct control of services through a system of local elected worker's soviets. I feel that, whether the free market can be controlled by consumers or not, my system would allow the People direct democratic control.

I am against Government control as a whole, completely against central Government control, and against the existence of Government in general. Yes, i am opposed to Obama's plan.

That businesses need to be controlled by a Government was not created by Governments. It was an idea developed by Keynes. Now, i don't like him because he was against my lot, and he advanced some of the flaws of a pure free market system.

The free market environment does not take investment into account. This is important because the bourgeoisie control investment. I do not have American figures, perhaps you could find them? However, in Britain, in 1999, the top 1% of wealthy people in Britain owned 50% of all stocks. What about the other 50%, you ask? Well, to give you a clue, 98% of stocks were owned by the top 10% most wealthy patrons of Britain.

It also does not take public deficit spending into account. This can affect the economy both ways and will impede upon the turf of businesses.

The free market creates inequalities in wealth. (Capitalism as a whole does this as well). In Free Market Britain, for example, the gap between the richest and the poorest people extended considerably. In 1906, the Liberal Government began the first rudimentary welfare programme. When conscription for the Boer war came, tens of thousands were turned away because they were not fit enough. If you were the victim of Laissez Faire capitalism, either you stuck it out, hoped for help from a Friendly Society, or you went to the poorhouse/workhouse. Children of 10, often younger, were worked half to death. Compare this to today, where Britain has nobody in absolute poverty. However, there are plenty in relative poverty. And the figures for that are pretty bad.

Look for a report by Booth and Rowntree. They can give the figures for those days. Keep in mind, they are very conservative figures. It was actually worse.

If you are of the mistaken belief that the "invisible hand" of the Free Market is infallible, keep in mind that the end of the free market in Britain, America, and the West in general, was the Great Depression.

If you would like a critique of the free market from a humane perspective, such as i have, and have demonstrated, Marx depicts it very well in Kapital, volume 1.

Third World countries often have no Government control over business and please look carefully at the results there. Also, be aware that in Third World countries, businesses usually take out far more than they put in, and are the prime exploiters of these nations' plant genetic resources.

Without Government control over business, there are no consumer rights or worker's rights. I have to say, there is a severe lack of the latter even in the West. Of course, it is expected of a communist to favour the worker.

Capitalism requires Government. Thus i oppose capitalism, for the reason that i oppose Government. But also because it is thoroughly inhumane.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#15
There are a couple of places in this world that don't have governments. Have you considered moving to Somalia or the Congo? I'm sure you'd be much happier there.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#16
I believe i have already mentioned a system for putting the people in direct control of services through a system of local elected worker's soviets.
Isn't that government?

I don't have the energy to wade in here fully. But I do have a couple of things to say.

First, opposition to providing health care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay is the equivalent of saying that other people should die or suffer great pain in order to keep your taxes down. It is a selfish and thoroughly immoral attitude.

Second, if having a single payer medical plan means you are a socialist country, then we are already there. Next year I will join such a plan. It is called Medicare.

Third, we need government to get things done. We need police. We need a monetary system. Dirk may be willling to live in anarchy, but I'm not. I don't want to live like a pioneer woman in some lawless western territory in the 1800's, with a dustcloth in one hand and a gun in the other, all day, every day.

And finally, it is very easy to be very firm in your ideology when you don't have to suffer the consequences. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here who can't afford medical care. If the rest of you think it is OK to live without medical coverage, I respectfully suggest that you surrender yours and see how it feels. And as I said before, if you don't like government, see if you can emigrate to a place where there isn't any.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#17
Isn't that government?
No. They are a means for the people to control individual services. The worker's soviets have no authority over the people.

First, opposition to providing health care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay is the equivalent of saying that other people should die or suffer great pain in order to keep your taxes down. It is a selfish and thoroughly immoral attitude.
I agree.

Third, we need government to get things done. We need police. We need a monetary system. Dirk may be willling to live in anarchy, but I'm not. I don't want to live like a pioneer woman in some lawless western territory in the 1800's, with a dustcloth in one hand and a gun in the other, all day, every day.
There would be very little crime in actual fact - because the causes would have been dealt with. And the community would organise itself to deal with any crime.

And finally, it is very easy to be very firm in your ideology when you don't have to suffer the consequences. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here who can't afford medical care. If the rest of you think it is OK to live without medical coverage, I respectfully suggest that you surrender yours and see how it feels. And as I said before, if you don't like government, see if you can emigrate to a place where there isn't any.
If i were in America, i wouldn't be able to afford medical care. As it is, thank goodness for the NHS, is all i can say.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#18
No. They are a means for the people to control individual services. The worker's soviets have no authority over the people.
Really? How can the people 'control' with 'no authority'?

There would be very little crime in actual fact - because the causes would have been dealt with. And the community would organise itself to deal with any crime.
You have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do.


If i were in America, i wouldn't be able to afford medical care. As it is, thank goodness for the NHS, is all i can say.
You mean that NHS that is provided by the government you don't think should even exist?
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#19
I am against Government control as a whole, completely against central Government control, and against the existence of Government in general. Yes, i am opposed to Obama's plan.
Obama's Healthcare Plan is definitely about Government control, more regulations, more paperwork, more bureaucracy.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#20
Obama wants to stand out. I think history will prove him to be outstanding at spending money we don't have. This guy wants to control everything. And billions mean nothing to him. He thinks in trillions!:mad: