Go Ron ... - Page 17

ceestyle · #**161** 05-21-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerdog

When you deny profit you also deny incentive, bright minds will follow the pay checks and innovation will suffer. After you fund "health care", next we'll be entirely funding drug research and then we will need to take that over (not that a good portion of their research isn't already publicly funded), where will it stop. Why not legalize competition and ease some of the mandates that make it impossible for the little guy to succeed and compete, thus driving cost down. Our dollar is falling and electronics are getting cheaper, why because there are few regulations and more and more companies are competing. Innovation is driven by profits and profits go up when more consumers are purchasing your goods or services. This Country was not founded as a socialist nation and has done quite well without being one, why would we want to change it now, if you really wanted to you need to amend the constitution, not ignore it.

You cannot apply the model of competition to government-funded outsourcing of services that once existed in the public sector, as I pointed out earlier. If you remove them entirely from public support, then I think it could work. There are a few problems, however, the first being that unless small business is specifically supported by the enforcement of anti-trust measures that, for example, block mergers and acquisitions that hurt actual "competition", there will be no place for the little guy. This has been the major trend at least twice in America. We see how well competition is working in petrol, operating systems, broadcast networks, internet, and many local services. (that was sarcasm, for the lack of text tone-of-voice).

Again, I'm not suggesting we become a socialist nation. I will say that a shit-ton of money is being blown by this government in the half-ass attempts at contracting its services, so something needs to be done.

homerdog · #**162** 05-21-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceestyle

The idea would be that you have capable representatives in government that make rational decisions about current issues. Our current leadership demonstrates the case when you have neither ration nor respect for the constitution. We collectively decide what is best for "us" by voting on referenda, local issues, and by electing representatives that best reflect our national interests. If we can't voice objection loudly enough through our reps, then there is something preventing the system from working the way it should.

Now this we can agree upon, for the most part. I believe that if it doesn't fall under the constitution and we want to change it, the people should vote to ratify the constitution (not our representatives as we know how righteous they are), I suppose we would have to ratify it to do what I just suggested.

ceestyle · #**163** 05-21-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by We TaRdED

Nice post man! +rep We all need to realize that big gov't isn't always the best thing for this world. Like you said, what if implanting a chip is allegedly 'for the best welfare of the people'? Is that going to happen? IDK, but they have been thinking about it for certain YouTube - NORTH AMERICAN UNION & VCHIP TRUTH , so unless we are aware of the potentials we are just mindless sheep. Everyone should know by now that the mainstream media is a big money monopoly that is spoon feeding propaganda into the sheeple. The people in power are control freaks, hence their positions.

And if anyone thinks that these people in power have exclusively good intentions and aren't capable of being bought out by lobbyists than go watch more FOX news.

Dude, go listen to some rage against the machine or something. I hate to be a dick, but you're bringing nothing to the table here. Do you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy too? You're just reiterating bomb-thrower jargon ...

homerdog · #**164** 05-21-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceestyle

I'm not suggesting we become a socialist nation. I will say that a shit-ton of money is being blown by this government in the half-ass attempts at contracting its services, so something needs to be done.

I agree with you on this as well. Look at how efficiently our gov run services work (insert sarcasm), I don't exactly support that either.

ceestyle · #**165** 05-21-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

Ceestyle, I think you have the basics down, whatever school you've been to.
Government was created to be the tool of the people. If the people needed healthcare, then the government should have set up a program from the gates, thereby eliminating profit. Profit is so entrenched today, it would take a revolution to unseat it. Profit VS health "Care", that is the question. When the constitution was formed, healthcare was a country doctor and a horse drawn carriage. You paid with chickens corn or whatever other assets you have. Now it is being denied to millions and costs an arm and a leg.

It's simply big business, and in order to make big business serve us, you have to make them directly accountable to us.

It's funny how noone has actually addressed the points I raised about the fundamental problems with half-privatized health care. Everybody hears government-funded health care and they go for the throat with their anti-big government rhetoric. I was only suggesting it as one of two options ...

ceestyle · #**166** 05-21-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerdog

I agree with you on this as well. Look at how efficiently our gov run services work (insert sarcasm), I don't exactly support that either.

Exactly. I'm not saying they're working the way they should. I just don't believe, for example, that we should eliminate the department of education. Education is a /national priority/, and some government oversight - to what degree is obviously debatable - is unquestionably necessary, IMO.

ceestyle · #**167** 05-21-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerdog

So doctors who spend half of their life dedicated to their studies shouldn't run their own businesses how they please? Under the system I am proposing doctors who tried to charge astronomical fees wouldn't be in very high demand if there were competition. If there weren't competition that probably means they developed some astonishing new treatment that they should have the right to charge as much as they wished. Same concept as selling dope, if you try to charge some astronomical price even for the best shit you are going to have very few takers (only the docs can't enjoy their own product)(In no way am I insinuating that I or anyone else do or should sell chronic). How do you think those advanced life saving measures were developed? Somebody got paid, and thou generally altruistic Dr's usually like to get paid for the work they did, just like everyone else. Now hospitals and such aren't going to like my idea, as it will for sure cut into their bottom line, and like you said it should be about the patient not the profit.'
Cheers.

Right. The problem is that without total privatization, it is difficult for those who are truly independent to survive. If the playing field is level, you get competition. If you have subsidies and other inequalities, it's not really fair, now is it?

homerdog · #**168** 05-21-2008, 01:12 PM

I agree that privatization would be best. Still don't see how publicly funded health care is the answer, it is a bottomless hole, especially when you are providing illegal immigrants with health care. Currently when Gov programs fail to meet budgets they are propped up with more tax dollars. If it was public health care and they were forced to meet budgets, where do you think those cuts will be made? On the education side, at least make public schools compete on a level playing group, determine exactly how much is spent per child (hold public schools accountable for this cost) and if the parent opts to they can use that amount of $ towards private schools and make it easy to do, I know in some places you can already do this.

homerdog · #**169** 05-21-2008, 01:14 PM

PS I am not trying to justify the current embodiment of health care by any means, personally I like the chicken and pig payment version more.

ceestyle · #**170** 05-21-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homerdog

I agree that privatization would be best. Still don't see how publicly funded health care is the answer, it is a bottomless hole, especially when you are providing illegal immigrants with health care. Currently when Gov programs fail to meet budgets they are propped up with more tax dollars. If it was public health care and they were forced to meet budgets, where do you think those cuts will be made? On the education side, at least make public schools compete on a level playing group, determine exactly how much is spent per child (hold public schools accountable for this cost) and if the parent opts to they can use that amount of $ towards private schools and make it easy to do, I know in some places you can already do this.

Oh man there are so many problems with that education model. I'm sorry I brought it up, actually. If you withhold direct support for public schools by allowing families to pull their money out of it, you get privately funded schools for kids that can afford supplementary tuition and public schools that are even worse off then they were before. There are so many iterations of this scheme, but I've yet to see one that doesn't have a major flaw and result in spiraling inequality.

As far as public health care is concerned, google nader single-payer health care and read his proposal. I'm not saying it's the be-all end-all of health care models, but it's obvious at least that he's put a good deal of thought into it, and it's good food for thought. It turns out that it would be significantly cheaper to have the government run the whole show. Then you don't have any of the overhead of insurance, billing, etc. It's not just Nader that believes this ... Krugman, among others also support the figures.