Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[kaz]

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

Those are your only non-libertarian positions? Other than that, you want government out of health care and redistribution of wealth?

Your are either dumber than I believe or ... well I suspect that sums it up.

You rattled those off as if they show you're not a Marxist. What about retirement, welfare, medical care, are those jobs for government? You didn't list those.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Do you think most Democrats supported giving in to the insurance industry? Health care reform has been on the plate for over a century, no one believed reform would be easy and not messy. But, what exists today is better than what existed before, and time will tell if it can be improved, or if the GOP will continue to demand its repeal.

Every Democrat who voted for ACA supported giving in to the insurance industry.

And that is the nature of the beast. When a committee or legilative body begins to design a horse, it inevitably ends up produces a camel. Rarely is a bill passed by the Congress which has not had dozens or more 'chefs' adding seasonings (some of which are in the form of special interests).

True, so why do you keep pushing for that?

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

Those are your only non-libertarian positions? Other than that, you want government out of health care and redistribution of wealth?

What's libertarian about those positions? They are all perfectly inline with stalinism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL, you admit you post to feel smart and get attention? That's funny. As for the rest of your post, all you did is explain your dislike for the word "Marxist." Not liking the word doesn't mean you are not one. However, your belief the planks of the Manifesto and use of the rhetoric to justify them does.

My favorite was your part where your support of Marxism is because you are pragmatic. You're a hoot.

You really are dumb. But on some level you know that. Don't parse my words, others beside you and your echo chamber buddies read my words and understand your effort to spin them is feeble.

I see, so you can tell me what I think, but when I say you're projecting, I'm "parsing" your words and I shouldn't do that. Oh, and I'm the one who's dumb. LOL, gotcha.

I don't tell you what to think, I doubt you do. You're simply one more dimwit who believes whatever they are told by the 'authorites' they trust - Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the faux philosophers on the fringe of the right.

That I challenge you drives (well in your case only a putt is needed) you crazy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

Those are your only non-libertarian positions? Other than that, you want government out of health care and redistribution of wealth?

Your are either dumber than I believe or ... well I suspect that sums it up.

You rattled those off as if they show you're not a Marxist. What about retirement, welfare, medical care, are those jobs for government? You didn't list those.

When did you stop beating your wife? You really are too stupid to bother with, so I'll leave you with that. I've got a flight to catch, a dog to exercise and a wife tired of my debating "those idiots".

 

[kaz]

Every Democrat who voted for ACA supported giving in to the insurance industry.

And that is the nature of the beast. When a committee or legilative body begins to design a horse, it inevitably ends up produces a camel. Rarely is a bill passed by the Congress which has not had dozens or more 'chefs' adding seasonings (some of which are in the form of special interests).

True, so why do you keep pushing for that?

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

Those are your only non-libertarian positions? Other than that, you want government out of health care and redistribution of wealth?

What's libertarian about those positions? They are all perfectly inline with stalinism.

I don't think you read that closely enough, your question doesn't make sense.

 

[kaz]

LOL, you admit you post to feel smart and get attention? That's funny. As for the rest of your post, all you did is explain your dislike for the word "Marxist." Not liking the word doesn't mean you are not one. However, your belief the planks of the Manifesto and use of the rhetoric to justify them does.

My favorite was your part where your support of Marxism is because you are pragmatic. You're a hoot.

You really are dumb. But on some level you know that. Don't parse my words, others beside you and your echo chamber buddies read my words and understand your effort to spin them is feeble.

I see, so you can tell me what I think, but when I say you're projecting, I'm "parsing" your words and I shouldn't do that. Oh, and I'm the one who's dumb. LOL, gotcha.

I don't tell you what to think, I doubt you do. You're simply one more dimwit who believes whatever they are told by the 'authorites' they trust - Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the faux philosophers on the fringe of the right.

That I challenge you drives (well in your case only a putt is needed) you crazy.

So being the intelligent one you are, you know that the right are brainwashing me to be a libertarian. Out of curiosity, if they have that power, why don't they brainwash me to agree with them? What's up with that?

Aren't you glad you're not so black and white like Republican, you're intelligent enough to realize that things aren't all just one or the other. You recognize shades of grey. LOL, what a dumb ass.

 

[kaz]

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

Those are your only non-libertarian positions? Other than that, you want government out of health care and redistribution of wealth?

Your are either dumber than I believe or ... well I suspect that sums it up.

You rattled those off as if they show you're not a Marxist. What about retirement, welfare, medical care, are those jobs for government? You didn't list those.

When did you stop beating your wife? You really are too stupid to bother with, so I'll leave you with that. I've got a flight to catch, a dog to exercise and a wife tired of my debating "those idiots".

LOL, what does that have to do with a "when did you stop beating your wife" question? I like to keep liberals talking. You call eveyrone stupid, yet demonstrate you are the moron.

You listed those things as if that's the only big government you want. I asked what else you want, or if that's it. We're in a health care thread, I keep asking you about that and you run and hide. So what about it, Comrade? Health care, is that the job of government?

 

[Boss]

I don't (your biases and ignorance always amaze me). I believe in campagin finance reform, public financing of federal elections and the repeal of CU v. FEC, McCutheon v. FEC; the passage of real sanctions (jail and fines) for those who attempt or garner special and extraordinary attention from elected or appointed officals.

You talk about people being stupid and dumb, then you say you want to "repeal" a Supreme Court ruling. You do understand a SCOTUS ruling can't be "repealed", only the law the ruling was based on, in this case, the 1st Amendment. Are you saying you want to repeal the 1st Amendment?

As for your "garner special attention" proposal... you want to lock every voting American up in jail? Because, basically, everyone gives a politician their vote to garner special attention. Hey, here's an idea... why don't we completely disband Congress and appoint a Czar?

We already had campaign finance reform. Our beloved John McCain led that crusade. Did it help? Of course not, you can't make something less important by making it more scarce. It was the single worst assault on the 1st Amendment in history and paved the way for all these assorted 501c groups who can hide the identities of individuals contributing to campaigns. Again... why not just get rid of campaigns and appoint a Czar? Problem solved, right?

 

[asterism]

High cost of care becomes cancer s growing burden USATODAY.com

"A recent American Cancer Society survey found that one-quarter of U.S. cancer patients put off getting a test or treatment because of cost, the group's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, writes in his new book "How We Do Harm," which discusses costs and argues for more rational use of health care. One out of 5 survey respondents over 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.

The burden hits hard on the middle class — people too well off for programs that cover the poor but unable to afford what cancer care often costs.

Dr. Amy Abernethy, director of the cancer care research program at Duke University, did a study of 250 such patients from around the country. Most were women with breast cancer, including Tyree. All but one had insurance, and two-thirds were covered by Medicare. The vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.

Their out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. To pay for cancer drugs, half spent less on food and clothes, and 43 percent borrowed money or used credit. Also, 26 percent did not fill a prescription, 22 percent filled part of one and 20 percent took less than prescribed."

Look at those numbers. You think poor people can afford all of that? Sure not all poor people have cancer but all poor people have the potential to get it. Is that fair?

First, you are basing your argument on the hypothetical that poor people might get cancer and that they might then not be able to find a way to afford treatment. You are taking this hypothetical situation and saying, "look our system is broken."

Second, in doing so you ignore the evidence that we currently have better cancer outcomes. You don't get more people surviving longer because fewer people are getting better treatment. You get that when the same number or more people are getting better treatment. Fewer people getting better treatment and the majority getting worse or no treatment would lead to outliers living longer and the majority living shorter.

Third, you haven't shown at all that government taking over would improve any aspect of the current system.

What are you talking about? Millions of people do not have health insurance. Millions more with insurance do not have the proper coverage to afford all the treatments they would need. The people who are getting the full state of the art treatment we have can AFFORD IT.

Again, some people might get cancer. Those people who might get cancer might not be able to find a way to afford it.

Meanwhile, more people currently are getting better cancer treatment leading to better cancer outcomes right now.

And finally (again) you still haven't shown that government taking over health care would improve anything.

Um no cancer tech itself is just better. It is getting more expensive as a result. Obviously that's a problem. Even less can afford it.

There's not much to prove besides comparing our system to another like Canada whose citizens overwhelmingly prefer theirs over ourS. I could also point you to the WHO report that ranks our system just above Solvenia. The countries ahead of us have some form of socialized medicine.

The WHO report uses as a key rating criteria the existence of government involvement. I posted the relevant information earlier in this thread.

 

[TooTall]

How about quality?
.

Yes obviously quality matters. Sure our system is state of the art. Again that's not enough to make it a good system if poor people can't afford basic cancer treatment.

You have every right to whatever health care you can afford.
That you cannot afford any particular level of health care does not give you the right to have the state force other people to pay for it, or provide it for free.

So those kids growing up in poor families shouldn't get proper healthcare because it is too expensive?

Poor people can get proper healthcare at City and County free clinics as well as get on Medicaid. No poor person is denied healthcare at a hospital emergency room. I have to pay $9 for a prescription from the VA and a friend of mine on Medicaid pay 25 cents for the same prescription. I think you are full of it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

LOL, there are liars, damn liars and the damn liars use logical fallacies (appeal to authority, straw man and ad hominem) to hide their bias framed by ignorance.

What I support is government regulation, what I oppose is laissez faire capitalsim. What I support is a workers right to organize and bargain collectively, what I oppose are those who wish to take away this right.

I understand Capital and Labor will always be at odds, but both require the other. The current war on working men and women is unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

What I fear is our nation drifting further and further into fundamental change, from a democratic republic to a republic controlled by the very rich - that is a Plutocracy. We are much closer to become a Plutocracy (and in fact we probably have become one in light of the horrific decisions by the Roberts Court).

Nonsense. What you are is a Marxist who supports Marxist policies.

If you think we're becoming a Plutocracy, that's fine... you were shown the list of the top 20 political contributors, they mostly fund Democrats. Stop voting for Democrats, would be my suggestion. Personally, I don't think we're going to ever become a Plutocracy just as we won't ever become a Theocracy, the Constitution prevents that.

Let me explain why you are so upset over the Roberts court ruling in Citizen's... it's because corporations were given the same freedom of speech rights as unions and special interest groups who fund the Democrat Party.

Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.

See:

Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'm not parroting anyone. What does a wiki link to PACs have to do with Citizen's United? [READ THE LINK, or Remain Ignorant!] I never said Citizen's leveled any playing field, the field was already leveled by the 1st Amendment, the SCOTUS simply reaffirmed that it would remain level. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right endowed to the people and can't be stripped away because they belong to a group, which is what a corporation represents.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

Neither is the AFL/CIO, yet I'm sure you see nothing wrong with them throwing billions into the ring of politics. You want to eliminate corporations from having a say, that won't happen without the likewise removal of unions from the political arena.

 

[dblack]

LOL, there are liars, damn liars and the damn liars use logical fallacies (appeal to authority, straw man and ad hominem) to hide their bias framed by ignorance.

What I support is government regulation, what I oppose is laissez faire capitalsim. What I support is a workers right to organize and bargain collectively, what I oppose are those who wish to take away this right.

I understand Capital and Labor will always be at odds, but both require the other. The current war on working men and women is unhealthy and morally reprehensible.

What I fear is our nation drifting further and further into fundamental change, from a democratic republic to a republic controlled by the very rich - that is a Plutocracy. We are much closer to become a Plutocracy (and in fact we probably have become one in light of the horrific decisions by the Roberts Court).

Nonsense. What you are is a Marxist who supports Marxist policies.

If you think we're becoming a Plutocracy, that's fine... you were shown the list of the top 20 political contributors, they mostly fund Democrats. Stop voting for Democrats, would be my suggestion. Personally, I don't think we're going to ever become a Plutocracy just as we won't ever become a Theocracy, the Constitution prevents that.

Let me explain why you are so upset over the Roberts court ruling in Citizen's... it's because corporations were given the same freedom of speech rights as unions and special interest groups who fund the Democrat Party.

Wrong. CU v. FEC didn't level any playing field, you are parroting Limbaugh or other talking heads and thus expose your ignorance.

See:

Political action committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'm not parroting anyone. What does a wiki link to PACs have to do with Citizen's United? [READ THE LINK, or Remain Ignorant!] I never said Citizen's leveled any playing field, the field was already leveled by the 1st Amendment, the SCOTUS simply reaffirmed that it would remain level. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right endowed to the people and can't be stripped away because they belong to a group, which is what a corporation represents.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding Mr. Romney's belief. Corporations are amoral, though some act with a moral certitude, others seek to profit and have business models which take into consideration the risks, and then decide some harm is better for the bottom line.

Neither is the AFL/CIO, yet I'm sure you see nothing wrong with them throwing billions into the ring of politics. You want to eliminate corporations from having a say, that won't happen without the likewise removal of unions from the political arena.

The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

 

[Andylusion]

...our healthcare system?

Already there is a big money in healthcare. If corporations run our healthcare system, they can charge whatever they want. Seriously what good is having state of the art healthcare if poor people can't afford the most basic of cancer treatment?

Why would it not be better to create a system that insures proper treatment for everyone? Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but if you take away profit as an incentive you are less likely to have corruption. Let's stop wasting billions a year on useless defense expenses and focus that money on socialized medicine.

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

Because there is no system that insures proper treatment. Did you just miss the VA scandal? You want to force EVERYONE into a system that kills it's patients?

Canada routinely sends people to the US for treatment, and Canadian citizens routinely come here for treatment. They have massive wait times, and people often die waiting......... just like the VA.

Our system is better than Canada's regardless of your opinion poll.

Yes, people like a system they don't have to pay for. That doesn't mean it's a better system.

But when people have to face the option of dying for free-care, or paying and living, most choose to come to the US, and pay for care.

 

[Andylusion]

Single payer, anyone?

"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]

"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."

When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.

Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.

Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?

Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online

Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.

 

[Boss]

The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

Government doesn't have the power to grant special favors, in fact, that is a really big no-no in Federal government, or any kind of government I am aware of in a free constitutional republic. If you know of criminal activity happening, it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities because criminal prosecution is highly in order.

Now, people, organizations, companies, special interest groups, political action committees, unions, lobbies... yeah... they all spend money supporting all kinds of politicians. Are they attempting to buy special favors? Again, if they are, this is criminally prosecutable action.

Are they trying to buy influence? Again, it skirts the boundaries of legality if that's the case.

So we have to believe that mostly, they support candidates because they believe in what the candidate is saying he/she will do, if elected. Perhaps this candidate favors policies that are favorable to the donor? Or maybe this candidate is more likely to defeat the candidate who's policies are harmful to the donor?

The problem with trying to somehow restrict or limit the money in politics is really simple to define and hard to overcome. You can never make something less important by limiting or restricting it. Free people should have the right to financially support the politicians they want elected. Money restrictions are the same as freedom restrictions in politics.

 

[georgephillip]

Single payer, anyone?

"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]

"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."

When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.

Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.

Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?

Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online

Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.

Some societies drown female infants.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.

"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.

"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.

"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.

"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."

While the rich get richer.

Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog

 

[dblack]

The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

Government doesn't have the power to grant special favors, in fact, that is a really big no-no in Federal government, or any kind of government I am aware of in a free constitutional republic. If you know of criminal activity happening, it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities because criminal prosecution is highly in order.

Now, people, organizations, companies, special interest groups, political action committees, unions, lobbies... yeah... they all spend money supporting all kinds of politicians. Are they attempting to buy special favors? Again, if they are, this is criminally prosecutable action.

Are they trying to buy influence? Again, it skirts the boundaries of legality if that's the case.

So we have to believe that mostly, they support candidates because they believe in what the candidate is saying he/she will do, if elected. Perhaps this candidate favors policies that are favorable to the donor? Or maybe this candidate is more likely to defeat the candidate who's policies are harmful to the donor?

The problem with trying to somehow restrict or limit the money in politics is really simple to define and hard to overcome. You can never make something less important by limiting or restricting it. Free people should have the right to financially support the politicians they want elected. Money restrictions are the same as freedom restrictions in politics.

Unfortunately, the current conception of "equal protection" (or lack thereof) does grant government the power to selectively hand out favors and assess penalties to select groups, which can often be characterized specifically enough to amount to a single corporation or individual. It happens most egregiously in the tax code, but also in the wide realm of the regulatory regime. And wealthy interests lobby aggressively for these favors. If government has less power to intervene in our economic affairs, there would be less incentive for that sort of lobbying.

 

[Andylusion]

Single payer, anyone?

"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]

"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."

When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.

Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.

Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?

Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online

Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.

Some societies drown female infants.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.

"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.

"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.

"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.

"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."

While the rich get richer.

Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog

Yeah dude. That's what I've been talking about. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money to spend. Greece setup their own disasters.

Now, I get it... you leftists never want to accept that your system fails, and instead you need to find someone to blame. So of course, it's not the fact socialism fails that caused this.... no it's "poor get poorer and rich get richer", it's the typical universal class warfare argument from the left.

If you really believe that the problem wasn't the system, but rather this loan deal, then why not just refuse to accept the loans??

"Because their would be fiscal crash and the economy would be ruined, and Greece would have collasped!"

Right, but how did they get into that position?

Because they engaged in socialism, and ran out of other people's money to spend.

Your system doesn't work. Greece is proof.

 

[georgephillip]

Single payer, anyone?

"Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.[1]

"Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

"The term 'single-payer' thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work."

When I turned 65 two years ago and became eligible for Medicare I was able to afford preventive health care for the first time in my life. I no longer had to wait to get sick to see a doctor. As a consequence, my physical and mental health is better today than it has been in the last twenty five years, at least.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the people of Greece said the same thing, until the system went broke, and hospitals couldn't even get bandages anymore.

Same with the people of Cuba, until they couldn't get Aspirin anymore.

Yes, Medicare is great as long as the tax payers keep paying higher and higher taxes, and the government borrows trillions. What happens when people get fed up paying more tax, and the government can't borrow anymore?

Then you end up screwed. Then you end up with doctors killing off patients.
Top doctor s chilling claim The NHS kills off 130 000 elderly patients every year Daily Mail Online

Why would they do that? Because when you don't pay for your own treatment, and there are limited funds.... you are no longer a paying customers, you are just a burden. You can talk about how that's morally wrong, and we have a duty to the elderly.... that's all fine... but this is the reality. In a socialized system, where you don't pay for your own treatment, you become a burden on society, and many societies euthanize burdens.

Some societies drown female infants.
The biggest burden facing the US and Greece, for example, is the greed of their richest citizens:
"Life in Greece has been turned on its head since the debt crisis took hold. But in few areas has the change been more striking than in health care.

"Until recently, Greece had a typical European health system, with employers and individuals contributing to a fund that with government assistance financed universal care.

"People who lost their jobs still received unlimited benefits.

"That changed in July 2011, when Greece signed a loan agreement with international lenders to ward off financial collapse.

"Now, as stipulated in the deal, Greeks who lose their jobs receive benefits for a maximum of a year. After that, if they are unable to foot the bill, they are on their own, paying all costs out of pocket."

While the rich get richer.

Health care insurance lessons from Greece - PNHP s Official Blog

Yeah dude. That's what I've been talking about. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money to spend. Greece setup their own disasters.

Now, I get it... you leftists never want to accept that your system fails, and instead you need to find someone to blame. So of course, it's not the fact socialism fails that caused this.... no it's "poor get poorer and rich get richer", it's the typical universal class warfare argument from the left.

If you really believe that the problem wasn't the system, but rather this loan deal, then why not just refuse to accept the loans??

"Because their would be fiscal crash and the economy would be ruined, and Greece would have collasped!"

Right, but how did they get into that position?

Because they engaged in socialism, and ran out of other people's money to spend.

Your system doesn't work. Greece is proof.

Greece proves Wall Street turns everything it touches into shit. It's a textbook case for how bankers, bondholders, speculators, and politicians can offload the cost of bad assets onto the shoulders of the non-rich, crushing their medical system and their society for the benefit of a few rich parasites.

 

[Boss]

The key thing is to revoke government's power to grant special favors to any of these groups. The reason they spend so much money to influence politics is because they get something for their money. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

Government doesn't have the power to grant special favors, in fact, that is a really big no-no in Federal government, or any kind of government I am aware of in a free constitutional republic. If you know of criminal activity happening, it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities because criminal prosecution is highly in order.

Now, people, organizations, companies, special interest groups, political action committees, unions, lobbies... yeah... they all spend money supporting all kinds of politicians. Are they attempting to buy special favors? Again, if they are, this is criminally prosecutable action.

Are they trying to buy influence? Again, it skirts the boundaries of legality if that's the case.

So we have to believe that mostly, they support candidates because they believe in what the candidate is saying he/she will do, if elected. Perhaps this candidate favors policies that are favorable to the donor? Or maybe this candidate is more likely to defeat the candidate who's policies are harmful to the donor?

The problem with trying to somehow restrict or limit the money in politics is really simple to define and hard to overcome. You can never make something less important by limiting or restricting it. Free people should have the right to financially support the politicians they want elected. Money restrictions are the same as freedom restrictions in politics.

Unfortunately, the current conception of "equal protection" (or lack thereof) does grant government the power to selectively hand out favors and assess penalties to select groups, which can often be characterized specifically enough to amount to a single corporation or individual. It happens most egregiously in the tax code, but also in the wide realm of the regulatory regime. And wealthy interests lobby aggressively for these favors. If government has less power to intervene in our economic affairs, there would be less incentive for that sort of lobbying.

Again, there is not a quid pro quo. Government agents are not allowed to exchange money for favors in any respect. Yes, government agencies do have the power to initiate certain actions that may or may not favor a donor. Yes, groups do attempt to influence candidates with piles of money. Yes, the inner workings of the grinding wheels of government does potentially favor different groups over others. But politicians are not being literally bought off.

Wealthy interests DO lobby, along with special interests, unions, CPACs, etc. Lots of money, lots of voices. How do you determine what the boundaries are between their freedom to lobby, fund candidates, support political policies, and your ability to remove people from that process?

Now, I am all for government not having the power to intervene in our economic affairs, but unfortunately, that is a different universe that we don't currently live in, so I can't worry too much about that. Government DOES have the power to intervene in our economic affairs and does so regularly. But whether it's economic affairs, social issues, foreign policy, or whatever, people will always have the freedom to financially support who they want to politically.