The Potato Chip Crisis

dogpet wrote

It happens every day because of economics as you know, not because whichever health system likes to see old people go blind. The most spinnable instances are exploited by this particular source because it objects to rich people paying any tax at all. Billionaires don't need any insurance, if they get ill they can just buy some treatment. If they never get ill, who needs doctors?
If a worker gets ill, employ a fresh one. Only educate to the level of the work a person is going to do? Why do we need seats in public transport?

I'm beginning to see why you need a gun brick

What does any of this have to with the story of the man going blind? Do you have evidence that that particular story is not true or that the paper is generally fradulent?

[dogpet]

Bet yo don't have roadkill chips

[Kate]

Oh. Dear.

[dogpet]

Another brick in the wall wrote

What does any of this have to with the story of the man going blind? Do you have evidence that that particular story is not true or that the paper is generally fradulent?

Nothing. Just I keep seeing the NHS used as an argument against healthcare reform in the USA, when the examples used you already have. & worse according to the reformers.

[ubs]

dogpet wrote

Can you buy proper crisps/chips in the USA? I ask because all the ones you name are made from processed reconstituted who knows what . Don't you have proper sliced potato fried in oil socialist type crisps?

Per James Beard who died for chips, McDonald's has the best chips in the world.

[ubs]

Another brick in the wall wrote

The liberal argument is we should have a single-payer system because everyone else is doing it. Well, just about everything except healthcare is sold in the free market. Healthcare is lackluster, ergo maybe it ought to be sold on the free market.

No, this liberal's argument is that when a society is rich, you share some with people at the bottom of the heap. I will not argue that socialism is economically less efficient that capitalism. It is less efficient to distribute things by committee than it is by mob vote.

It's just that the systems efficiency is not the only relevant factor.

When you play a game with your little brother, you know you can womp his ass every time. If you don't work a handicap into the game, eventually he won't play anymore.

So it is with society. Capitalism is like a spinning top. Everything starts out great but eventually you get a wobble - eventually you have a very wealthy top that no longer have to worry about their customers because of their accumulated heap and a very poor bottom that can never get a break and then, guess what, the poor don't want to play any more.

It's in the best interest of the strong to right the top now and then.

dogpet wrote

Nothing. Just I keep seeing the NHS used as an argument against healthcare reform in the USA, when the examples used you already have. & worse according to the reformers.

It makes perfect sense to cite bureaucratic failures in a government healthcare program if your goal is to discourage people from adopting a government healthcare program. Why is it that only Michael Moore is allowed to use anecdotes?

There are bureaucratic failures in both systems. We can avoid the tit-for-tat anecdote game by comparing things like per capita spending and life expectancy. In that case, the British have a modest lead on the US; that much I concede.

The healthcare debate cycle goes something like this:

A: US healthcare is lousy compared to other wealthy countries. We should adopt a single payer system like them instead of continuing with the free market system.

B: There are still failures in single-payer systems too. Also the US system is not free market.

A: Look, the free market just doesn't work for healthcare- just compare the US to any other wealthy nation.

B: Do you have a hearing problem? The US system is NOT free market. That might be a reason its performance is worse despite high spending. Why not try having a true free market for healthcare?

A: Well, I can see you're just a heartless fascist who'd let people die.

B: Do you do anal?

[dogpet]

Another brick in the wall wrote

It makes perfect sense to cite bureaucratic failures in a government healthcare program if your goal is to discourage people from adopting a government healthcare program. Why is it that only Michael Moore is allowed to use anecdotes?

There are bureaucratic failures in both systems. We can avoid the tit-for-tat anecdote game by comparing things like per capita spending and life expectancy. In that case, the British have a modest lead on the US; that much I concede.

Fine, but how can your example be called a bureaucratic failure?

Calvin Rojeweski of Portland Oregon died last Thursday aged 88. In an interview yesterday by Fox News, he expressed his extreme disappointment at the failure of his insurance company to pool their entire resources to keep him alive. "All my life I've never missed a payment, yet the doctors told me I would have to sell my $400 property & self finance the necessary daily blood transfusions & monkey gland injections." Mr Rojeweski will now miss sharing his 75th wedding anniversary with his wife Doris, who died in 2006 when god sent a huge block of frozen urine to crush her as she walked to church. He blames the paramedics for their incompetent efforts to bring her back to full health.

What I mean is you might as well have made it up for all the good it did in the debate.

The other thing you get wrong is the often repeated statement that socialised health care does not allow people to take out their own health insurance. I think what you mean by that is you would not be allowed to opt out of the state system & remove your contribution. If so will you be telling us next that citizens should be allowed to claim back from the defence budget all the money they spend on personal munitions?

[nkb]

Another brick in the wall wrote

It makes perfect sense to cite bureaucratic failures in a government healthcare program if your goal is to discourage people from adopting a government healthcare program. Why is it that only Michael Moore is allowed to use anecdotes?

Using dishonest tactics (like fear mongering) makes perfect sense? Good to know, but not surprising, considering the source.

Another brick in the wall wrote

There are bureaucratic failures in both systems. We can avoid the tit-for-tat anecdote game by comparing things like per capita spending and life expectancy. In that case, the British have a modest lead on the US; that much I concede.

Really? A modest lead? Which per capita spending figures are you looking at?

Another brick in the wall wrote

A: US healthcare is lousy compared to other wealthy countries. We should adopt a single payer system like them instead of continuing with the free market system.

Do you ever tire of using strawman arguments?

dogpet wrote

Fine, but how can your example be called a bureaucratic failure?

. . . . . What I mean is you might as well have made it up for all the good it did in the debate.

The other thing you get wrong is the often repeated statement that socialised health care does not allow people to take out their own health insurance. I think what you mean by that is you would not be allowed to opt out of the state system & remove your contribution. If so will you be telling us next that citizens should be allowed to claim back from the defence budget all the money they spend on personal munitions?

It's not a bureaucratic failure if the government says "sorry, but we can only pay for your surgery after you go blind in one eye. We have to watch our bottom line, you know." ?

I've heard many times that only the government can provide serivce X (roads, defense, healthcare, for examples) and thus the only way we can have these things is if the government forces people to pay for them. Apparently only governments and the Mafia have to do this to get by. Sea World doesn't have to threaten people to get customers, nor does Ford force people to buy cars at gunpoint. If the services provided by the government are so essential, I have to ask, why does it have to use violence to persuade people to pay for them?

Defense is good example of how the government wastes money trying to solve a problem of its own making. You could reduce the threat of terrorism to just about zero very easily. All you have to do is leave people alone. That's it. It's really that simple. There is a reason why Al Quaeda attacked the US and not Brazil. There is a reason why the 2005 bombings were in London and not Stockholm or Geneva.

The only difference between the government and a mugger is that when a mugger uses threats to take your money, he doesn't give you some moral lecture about how he's doing it for your own good.

nkb wrote

Using dishonest tactics (like fear mongering) makes perfect sense? Good to know, but not surprising, considering the source.
Really? A modest lead? Which per capita spending figures are you looking at?
Do you ever tire of using strawman arguments?

I really like the way your responses get shorter as the discussion progresses. I feel like I'm chiseling you down to nothing. Of course, there wasn't much in your position to begin with.

What's dishonest about reporting a failure if it happened? Did I say this was the general case? No, I used it to point out that bureacratic failures and treatment denials occur in the UK system too.

Do you ever tire of having nothing to say in response?

How to argue like nkb (AKA The Greatest Genius of All Time) in three easy steps

1) Your position is different from mine; therefore it's a strawman.
QED.

2) I will call your argument a strawman because I can't think of anything else to say about it.
QED.

3) Repeat 1) and 2) as neccessary.

[ubs]

It just feels very faux to defend libertarian virtues against some poor street guy getting a doctor visit on our nickel, while at the same time the estate tax reduction quietly comes up for a quick renewal without a single libertarian peep.

Where is the concern for free market in the face of the much larger threat of crony-ism?

ubs wrote

It just feels very faux to defend libertarian virtues against some poor street guy getting a doctor visit on our nickel, while at the same time the estate tax reduction quietly comes up for a quick renewal without a single libertarian peep.

Where is the concern for free market in the face of the much larger threat of crony-ism?

If you want to pay for someone else's healthcare, do it. No one will stop you.

Here's something I find disingenuous: liberals basically want the government to take money away from rich people so they can have it. This they call "unselfishness." Meanwhile, if the government tries to coerce them in a way they don't like (even if that way has the support of the majority) they call it "fascism." They're against the ruling class because they want to be the ruling class!

My guess the reason why libertarians are complaining about the reduction of the estate tax is because libertarians don't like taxes. Why not read up on their views a little before posting again?

[Philboid Studge]

Brick I fear you may not understand what a strawman argument is. A few examples, chosen at random from the dimmest nooks of the Internets:

Liberals like to argue that healthcare is different because it's essential.

The thing I find most annoying about the debate is the insistence that only a total imbecile or heartless brute would be against "free" healthcare.

Um, yeah, 'cause government healthcare programs never, ever cruelly deny people treatment:

The liberal argument is we should have a single-payer system because everyone else is doing it. [this one manages to be two strawmen]

I think calling nkb the Greatest Genius of All Time--though true-- is also a strawman.

Edited to add:

Here's something I find disingenuous: liberals basically want the government to take money away from rich people so they can have it.

[ubs]

Another brick in the wall wrote

If you want to pay for someone else's healthcare, do it. No one will stop you.

What I want is to promote social stability. Social stability is market friendly and saves lives.

Another brick in the wall wrote

Here's something I find disingenuous: liberals basically want the government to take money away from rich people so they can have it. This they call "unselfishness." Meanwhile, if the government tries to coerce them in a way they don't like (even if that way has the support of the majority) they call it "fascism." They're against the ruling class because they want to be the ruling class!

Except that all of our property isn't determined by "God given right." It's determined by a some what arbitrary set of man made rules. The position of the powerful is only possible by the collusion of the remaining individuals. If enough people decide tomorrow that dollars are worthless, the current rich become the poor. Those in power require our agreement to maintain their position and are thus dependent on our good will.

What you think you own or what you think you've earned is only yours because of those rules. If the developing situation strikes enough people as unfair or even just not in the best interest of stability, the rules can be changed. There is no "fair." Is it fair that you weren't born in Biafra? Is it fair that you are white and male?

Another brick in the wall wrote

My guess the reason why libertarians are complaining about the reduction of the estate tax is because libertarians don't like taxes. Why not read up on their views a little before posting again?

Brick, I know what free market is and inheritance is free market unfriendly. Their choices seem very selective - like menu Catholicism.

I have to stick with my original impression of Libertarians: people exposed to Rand before they were old enough to examine the text with a critical eye and question the absence of the elderly, sick, and orphaned.

Eventually you will be the old man. In anarchy you will not survive. Is that the best model?