06 Jul '09 11:26>
Originally posted by utherpendragonSing it!! Hello silence my old friend.... 😛
respond to the article posted by whodey
Originally posted by whodey1. So to show the inferiority of nationalized healthcare in terms of outcome, you choose to focus on cancer deaths in a single age group, in a single country. This is a suspect way of reasoning at best, better would be to look at overall figures, things like average life expectancy, in which the American system is obviously worse.
We can simply re-word your last sentence by saying, "
And now liberals are convinced that the government alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation."
Here is a good article regarding the issues with nationalized systems around the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_health_less ...[text shortened]... gals. In fact, it may even surpass the added extra expenses of for profit medicine.
Originally posted by BartsThere is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
1. So to show the inferiority of nationalized healthcare in terms of outcome, you choose to focus on cancer deaths in a single age group, in a single country. This is a suspect way of reasoning at best, better would be to look at overall figures, things like average life expectancy, in which the American system is obviously worse.
Also note that this argum ...[text shortened]... really any wonder that people were hesitant to using this drug as standard treatment.
Originally posted by Wajomathat attitude is why you see Americans dying in the street . i saw one when in NY, Manhattan!
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
Originally posted by WajomaSo when people talk about introducing a socialized health care model, you think putting a new insurer with massive handicaps (massive handicaps to compete in a free market, that is, not massive handicaps per se.) into a completely free market is just as good ?
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
Originally posted by WajomaHow many more times do I have to refute this? You can apply this exact same argument to taxes in general. Now, who would pay taxes if it was voluntary?
There is a simple solution, let those that believe in a socialized health system sign up for it, and let all those with the gumption to stand on their own two feet and take responsibilty for their own decisions do so.
End of debate.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat government managed to drive the cost of an SMS which costs a fraction of a cent to transmit down to 11 cents is no great victory. Especially since it was their endless meddling that caused prices to go through the stratosphere in the first place. And you haven't added back the cost of a massive cast of government drones for the privilege.
Of course, like with most things he said, Milton Friedman was wrong.
Last month, I paid more than 50 eurocents for a text message abroad within the EU, even though the doe-eyed "free market" laws suggest competition should drive prices to a few cents at most. Now I pay 11 cents due to EU government intervention in the telecommunications cartel.
Originally posted by spruce112358Why are you denying facts? In what sense did "government meddling" cause my telephone provider to charge 50 cents for a text message?
That government managed to drive the cost of an SMS which costs a fraction of a cent to transmit down to 11 cents is no great victory. Especially since it was their endless meddling that caused prices to go through the stratosphere in the first place. And you haven't added back the cost of a massive cast of government drones for the privilege.
No, Milton had it right for a lot of things.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRegulation is a very poor substitute for competition. Direct market fiddling paradoxically raises costs. The only reasonable regulations are those that ensure competition. This has been proved over and over again. Only a company in a monopoly situation can "exploit" customers indefinitely.
Why are you denying facts? In what sense did "government meddling" cause my telephone provider to charge 50 cents for a text message?
Face it, libertarianism is broke. Expecting that corporations will refrain from exploiting their consumers in a poorly regulated market is just as naive, and perhaps even more so than those communists who think a communal government can exist without an autocrat seizing power.
Originally posted by spruce112358...and the biggest monopoly of all?
Regulation is a very poor substitute for competition. Direct market fiddling paradoxically raises costs. The only reasonable regulations are those that ensure competition. This has been proved over and over again. Only a company in a monopoly situation can "exploit" customers indefinitely.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou haven't refuted it yet, previously your "rebuttal"(?) consisted of saying two words.
How many more times do I have to refute this? You can apply this exact same argument to taxes in general. Now, who would pay taxes if it was voluntary?