The end is in sight

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On May 3, 7:51 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2
trillion in
2006 ... In 2006, U.S. health care spending was about $7,026 per
resident and
accounted for 16% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
NHS Spending 2005-06: Ł87.2bn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1935730.stm
That's ~ $ 2034 per resident.
That's a projection, from 2002. Any idea what the actual UK outlay
was?
UK helath spending has sat around 5% of GDP for quite some time now
and its seems unlikely that this has changed recently.

Indeed, see my reply which showed that actual spending fell BELOW
the estimate !

In comparison, US spending is IIRC some 15-16% of GDP typically.

Graham


Your first link, from 2002, says

"The effect of these increases will mean that the
proportion of national income spent on the NHS
will rise from 7.7% now to 8.7% in 2005-06 and
9.4% in 2007-08."

Since spending is certain and income is not, it'd
be interesting to see what the actual figures are today.

I followed some of the links from that article to several
others portraying the UK system rather negatively; I'm
not swayed by that--it looks like the same treatment the
media gives our situation.

Our system could certainly be more efficient, it's just
that the government has removed all such incentive. It's
been open-looped, and the cash they pump in just drives
it further toward the rails.

Then the logical thing to do would be to close the loop, as it is in
other countries that have universal health care, run by the government.


You don't understand our government. These are the geniuses
who built the global financial crisis. They _already_ spend ~8%
of our GDP on healthcare;

16%, according to all the figures I've seen.

Only half of that is government spending, half is private.

(Assuming the numbers aren't just outright lies, which one
finds they often are in this particular controversy.)

what they propose is to spend even
more.

Assuming they get it right, it would actually *decrease* health spending
as a percentage of GDP. No more money spent on insurance company
bureaucrats whose job it is to deny claims, hospital management who
aren't terrified of being sued, lower malpractice insurance, cheaper
tests, etc.

Socialized medicine isn't a panacea--just putting money into
a common pot doesn't guarantee a thing will work. It's your
system of rules, payments, and customs that does that.

Very true. Fortunately, there are plenty of successful 'socialised'
healthcare systems that the USA could simply copy, to great benefit. Why
reinvent the wheel? The French or Australian systems (which both include
paid private health cover as well as the free public cover) would be
good models for the USA.

You're confused about the object of the new plan, which is to reward
favored constituents.

If I were sarcastic I might point out the current incentives have
spawned a giant industry that _depends_ on the waste. (Another
bubble.)

The waste, and spreading of it, is a false prosperity, but it's
bigger than the car companies. If today's doublethinkers are
consistent, fraud and waste should be preserved and expanded,
because too many jobs depend on them--they're "too big to
fail."

Cheers,
James Arthur

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Spread the Waste!"

 

[Bob Larter]

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.
The Russian government did pretty much an Obama there (or Obama's
doing a few Putins, if you prefer):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#Russian_Government_control

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact with
the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't socialism
stand up on its own?

Are you familiar with this thing called 'trade' ? What would Cuba's natural largest trading
partner be ?

I think you're being a little optimistic in expecting any of the
wingnuts to get your point here. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:21 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com
wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:NJYLl.4570$b11.2109@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M
Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

To be fair about it you need to say 'some' Americans because there are
others who seem rather fond of 'socialism' and there's a fair number
of them in government right now.

I find it surprising you find it ridiculous because you're talking
about core, fundamental, principles of government. Would you be so
cavalier about mangling a few Bill of Rights principles?


Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.

You'd have to define what you mean by 'subsidizing' and how 'necessity
is determined.

Do you call building roads a 'subsidy'? Because that doesn't take from
one and give to another based on class or status. It's of mutual
benefit.

The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

I think you may have just explained why those who oppose socialism do
so with such zeal. Because you've explained that, once started, it
becomes a, ho hum, 'matter of degree', no big deal.

It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

TheM wrote:

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at
elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting
themselves.

M

No one has criticized Sweden--that's not an issue.

Why not? - They're about as socialised as it gets.

What's at issue is whether their socialism aids or hurts them,
and whether it's sustainable.

You've promoted Sweden as an example of socialism that carries
its own weight. Please elaborate.

Um, their lack of national debt?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

That's true.

Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works for
health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets less.

In the US our fire departments work on a "socialism" model. That is,
they
are tax supported and come put out your fires on an as needed basis
without
cost. You don't haggle with them, bargain with them, have some doofus
claim
he can't put out this or that fire nor are they tied to your employment.
This model has served us very well for 250 years. Why should a sick
person
be any different than a sick, on fire house?

Nice analogy.

Yes. And the same logic applies to schools, police, libraries & nation
defense. All of them benefit from economies of scale that make them
cheaper & more effective than a free market "solution".

Sure, just give politicians infinite money and let them spend
it appropriately.

That's always better than letting people do things themselves,
because politicians are so clever, so careful when it comes to
spending.

People ought not be allowed to save or have money--they'll only
waste it, and there are always other people who need it more
than the ones who earned it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham



I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Oh, please.

Kindly document your point then--what's Russia's GDP, major export,
etc.; what accounts for their surplus? Socialism?

To the best of my knowledge, *everything* in Russia is nationalised.
That's a totally different argument as to whether or not it's a good
thing, but I doubt that anyone would argue that it's the case. In the
USSR everything has been nationalised for the best part of a century.

I've been backing everything up, but I can't possibly debunk stuff
as quickly as you can make it up.

Oh, come on. I'm not making stuff up anywhere near as fast as you
wingnuts are. ;^)

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

Socialism isn't well-defined, is it?

No, it's not.

The US, presently, is acquiring public ownership of banks, factories,
medical services, mortgages, and is growing rapidly.

Yes, you have a point there. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing,
but I can accept that you feel differently about it.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Those were offered as "proof", without backup or explanation. Kindly
show that they're sustainable, and a net gain to the country.

Check their GDP as a proportion of their national debt. If their debt is
below their GDP, then they're obviously doing okay.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

Obviously not. That's the point, isn't it?
If it's better, why isn't it voluntary?

Well yeah, exactly. If it was any good, the bosses would be using it.
Now check which countries are those where the leaders use the health
systems that they provide to the masses. I guarantee that the USA won't
be one of them. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jim Yanik]

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

If the government has control of the means of production,that's no
different than outright ownership.
The end result is that gov't is running them.

(and the gov't doesn't care about stockholders;there goes our investments)

But,I note that Obama forced some companies to change their "preferred"
stock the gov't bought to "common" stock,so government DOES own those
companies.
"Preferred" stock cannot vote,while "common" stock can vote,thus control.

Or one could say Obama is adopting Fascism.(Liberal Fascism??) B-)

Socialism isn't well-defined, is it?
Cheers,
James Arthur

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:wyjMl.2847$fy.1004@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works
for health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets
less.

In the US our fire departments work on a "socialism" model. That
is, they
are tax supported and come put out your fires on an as needed basis
without
cost. You don't haggle with them, bargain with them, have some
doofus claim
he can't put out this or that fire nor are they tied to your
employment. This model has served us very well for 250 years. Why
should a sick person
be any different than a sick, on fire house?

That socialism depends on the profitable CAPITALISM to prop it up.
Same as any other gov't service.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nice analogy.

Yes. And the same logic applies to schools, police, libraries &
nation defense. All of them benefit from economies of scale that make
them cheaper & more effective than a free market "solution".

which doesn't mean it can(or should) be extended to all of society,as the
Leftist Weenies want to do. And ARE doing.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Sure, just give politicians infinite money and let them spend
it appropriately.

That's always better than letting people do things themselves,
because politicians are so clever, so careful when it comes to
spending.

People ought not be allowed to save or have money--they'll only
waste it, and there are always other people who need it more
than the ones who earned it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Martin Brown]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
[...]
Universal health care demonstrably works well in many countries, &
is, per capita, cheaper than the patchwork system used in the USA,
while producing better outcomes on average. This is a
well-documented fact, not an opinion.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

You want the facts? - No problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/business/18leonhardt.html
---
In Greece, the government and individuals combine to spend about
$2,300 per capita on health care each year, and the average life
expectancy is 79 years. Canada, where the hospitals are probably
cleaner, spends about $3,300, and people live to about 80. Here in the
United States, we spend more than $6,000, yet life expectancy is just
below 78.
---
(The whole article is worth reading, BTW.)

I already addressed the life expectancy issue--that's a bogus
issue, and a bogus proxy for medical care quality.

To prove that point you'd have to show
- that genetically, medically equivalent groups with the same
health habits live longer,
- and that it's due to better medical care.

That mostly just isn't true. Most 1rst-world deaths are from
lifestyle-related causes, clogged arteries and cancer being #1
and #2. Statins help, but a country with more fat, sedentary
people eating junkfood will flat-out have more illnesses and
deaths, period.

That doesn't mean their healthcare is worse.

That depends how you look at it. If you believe that the job of a
healthcare system is to fix things up when they get broken then you
might have a point. I am sure the US system is great at doing heart
bypass ops and replacing worn out hips and knees wrecked by morbidly
obese owners.

If you believe that a healthcare system should educate the population to
make sensible lifestyle choices then the only possible conclusion is
that their healthcare is worse. It failed to help them keep fit and
healthy and as a result they die prematurely.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/piie-monitor/256439/europe_and_the_us_whose_health_care_is_more_socialist

Look at the second graph, OECD data on healthcare expenditures, also:
---
Empirically, the share of total healthcare expenses that Americans pay
out-of-pocket is lower than in the vast majority of European and other
OECD countries for which recent comparable data are available.
Americans are therefore generally more likely to ask someone else to
pay for their health care than people in other OECD countries. In
reality America’s healthcare system is already more “socialized” than
in most European and other developed countries.

"Already more socialized," and that's the part that sucks. So, we
should expand _that_?

The point being made here is that the adminstration of the US private
health insurance system costs so much that you would be better off
without it. The hospital prices are inflated by the weird tax deductable
employee benefits health schemes. And hospitals are more concerned about
getting paid than the welfare of the patient.

Certainly, it is the case that Americans pay a higher absolute dollar
amount in out-of-pocket expenses than almost anywhere else in the OECD
(only Switzerland is higher). Yet that is solely because health care
in America is so much more expensive than anywhere else and
demonstratively not due to Americans being relatively more exposed to
the “true costs of healthcare” than people elsewhere, let alone in
countries practicing so-called “socialized medicine.”

That echoes my point, that government has broken the feedback loops.

Do you really want to go back to having the poor dying in the streets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
---
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does
not have a universal health care system.[1][2] The government directly
covers 27.8% of the population[16] through health care programs for
the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans,
children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and
TRICARE.[17][18] Federal law ensures public access to emergency
services regardless of ability to pay.[19] However, this unfunded
mandate has contributed to a health care safety net that some analyses
say is increasingly strained.[20] Certain types of medical spending
and particularly health insurance benefit from significant tax
subsidies; in particular, employer-sponsored health insurance is a
non-taxable benefit. In all, government spending accounted for 45.1%
of total health spending in the U.S. in 2005.[21] Current estimates
put U.S. health care spending at more than 15% of GDP, a greater
portion than in any other United Nations member state except for the
Marshall Islands.[22]
---

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2007/gb20070613_921562.htm

---
In the May 16 issue of The Journal of the American Medical
Association, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the department of
clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, wrote "The
U.S. health-care system is considered a dysfunctional mess."
[...]
But in some respects, France comes pretty close to the ideal. Not only
are its 62 million citizens healthier than the U.S. population, but
per capita spending on health care is also roughly half as much.
[...]
The key to France's success is that its system, like the U.S.'s,
values patient choice and physician control over medical
decision-making. But France does it for far less, with per capita
health-care spending in 2004 at just $3,500, compared with $6,100 in
the U.S., according to the World Health Organization. All told, France
spends 10.7% of gross domestic product on health care, vs. 16.5% in
the U.S.
---

You've got to remember that these people are rabidly partisan,
pushing their position. Most of them can't add, and more than
half lie about the numbers.

The French or the Japanese systems are still models of efficiency that
should be considered by any self respecting first world country.

This group includes, for example, 30-odd million illegal aliens
in their estimates of "Americans" without insurance.

Their blanket-statement collective(ist) logic is on a par with
"France spends less on hurricane preparedness, yet has significantly
lower losses," therefore the US should copy France.

If you're going to assert longer lifespan == better medical care,
then you've got to prove it. Association != causation.

It is a reasonable proxy all other things being equal. The fact that so
many Americans are morbidly obese tells you that there is something very
wrong somewhere.

American cancer patients live longer than French.

But more of them get cancer and at an earlier age.

More Americans have heart disease, which is the #1 killer. That's
a lifestyle disease. Does socialized medicine keep French people
thin?

In a way yes. They are taught to value good food and wine in moderation.
The French and Japanese health system place a lot more emphasis on
preventing illnesses in the first place rather than heroic efforts to
keep people alive at huge expense for their last 3 months.

Like I said; the US pays more & gets less. Socialised health care works.

We already have it--8% of our GDP, to cover, what was it, 24% of
the population?

So, with all its warts, that would make the socialized part
more than twice as expensive as the private part.

For 8-10% of GDP you should be able to run a universal healthcare system
free at the point of delivery with optional bells and whistles for those
that want to go privately and have bigger rooms, plasma TV, designer
furniture etc. Even the socialised systems that you spit upon have some
nominal prescription charges to discourage hypochondriac timewasters.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bob Larter]

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:

Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works for
health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets less.

In the US our fire departments work on a "socialism" model. That is,
they
are tax supported and come put out your fires on an as needed basis
without
cost. You don't haggle with them, bargain with them, have some
doofus claim
he can't put out this or that fire nor are they tied to your
employment.
This model has served us very well for 250 years. Why should a sick
person
be any different than a sick, on fire house?

Nice analogy.

Yes. And the same logic applies to schools, police, libraries & nation
defense. All of them benefit from economies of scale that make them
cheaper & more effective than a free market "solution".


Sure, just give politicians infinite money and let them spend
it appropriately.

That's always better than letting people do things themselves,
because politicians are so clever, so careful when it comes to
spending.

People ought not be allowed to save or have money--they'll only
waste it, and there are always other people who need it more
than the ones who earned it.

The point you're missing is that just as it makes economic sense to make
fire brigades a public utility, it makes economic sense to make
healthcare a public utility as well. That's how it's done in a bunch of
other first world countries, & there's no reason to believe that it
wouldn't work just as well in the USA. You guys manage to make your fire
brigades work okay, right? Then why couldn't you do the same with health
care?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Is the US the sole fountain of prosperity in the world? Is contact with
the US a /sine qua non/ for the success of socialism? Can't socialism
stand up on its own?

Are you familiar with this thing called 'trade' ? What would Cuba's
natural largest trading
partner be ?

I think you're being a little optimistic in expecting any of the
wingnuts to get your point here. ;^)

I'm just an independent liberal who happens to think, but of course
I get his point:

o The only way to become prosperous is to trade,
o with the US.

Cuba trades freely with Europe, but somehow trading with Europe doesn't
produce prosperity.

I get it, I just don't believe it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye
aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas
in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP,
MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were
less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.

So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.

If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

That explains the US' trade with China (& Europe) nicely. And
Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 6, 6:25 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham

I specified self-supporting.  Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

Oh, please.

Kindly document your point then--what's Russia's GDP, major export,
etc.; what accounts for their surplus?  Socialism?

I've been backing everything up, but I can't possibly debunk stuff
as quickly as you can make it up.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba?  It's been what,
50 years?  Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

Socialism isn't well-defined, is it?

Neither is "capitalism".

The US, presently, is acquiring public ownership of banks, factories,
medical services, mortgages, and is growing rapidly.

What's growing rapidly? And the US government's current acquisitions
of banks, factories and mortgages reflects the facts that the assets
that is acquiring are coupled to debts that could not be paid off by
selling these "assets". It's basically a chapter 11 manoeuvre,
designed to keep everything ticking over until the panic subsides.

Medical services are a different case - your medical services cost
twice as much as anybody else's, and serve the low-income 30% of your
populkation very poorly. The free market is obviously not serving its
customers very well, and the are plenty of examples around the world
of system of organisation that work better

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Those were offered as "proof", without backup or explanation.  Kindly
show that they're sustainable, and a net gain to the country.

Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands all exist and none of
them is running your gigantic balance of payments deficit, so they can
be expected to continue to exist. What more do you need to know - that
you can't google from the CIA international fact book?

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.

You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?

Obviously not.  That's the point, isn't it?
If it's better, why isn't it voluntary?

That it is better for the country as a whole doesn't make it better
for specific individuals at a specific instant. Healthy twenty year-
olds generally get a lot less out of a universal health care system
than they put in - though they tend to do better out of the health
system as they get older. Unfortunately, fine-tuning the system to
reflect real costs and benefits doubles the cost of the system - as
your non-socialist medical care system demonstrates, so the rational
answer is to keep it simple.

If you have enough money - as rulers seem to do - you can buy
marginally better health care, but there is very little economy of
scale so it is very expensive.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[James Arthur]

Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
TheM wrote:

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from
country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at
elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting
themselves.

M

No one has criticized Sweden--that's not an issue.

Why not? - They're about as socialised as it gets.

What's at issue is whether their socialism aids or hurts them,
and whether it's sustainable.

You've promoted Sweden as an example of socialism that carries
its own weight. Please elaborate.

Um, their lack of national debt?

Association does not prove causation.

The US could easily seize a bunch of private wealth, triple
taxes, and wildly increase waste, all at the same time.

We could greatly increase, say, ethanol production:
White House to Step Up Ethanol Efforts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124148381997685649.html

The citizens would be much poorer, but we'd have no debt.

You've got to show that it's socialism that's actually paying
the bills, that it's accretive, and not a drain.

James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Jim Yanik wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:

According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".

I agree.

If the government has control of the means of production,that's no
different than outright ownership.
The end result is that gov't is running them.

Indeed.

(and the gov't doesn't care about stockholders;there goes our investments)

But,I note that Obama forced some companies to change their "preferred"
stock the gov't bought to "common" stock,so government DOES own those
companies.
"Preferred" stock cannot vote,while "common" stock can vote,thus control.

Right--by dictum, Obama a) confiscates huge chunks of formerly private
property, and b) seizes control over their use and administration.

A number of these companies didn't want bailout money; the govm't
crammed it down their throats. And now they own and control them.

The "stress tests" are being used the same way--they can find
whatever they want, based on a hypothetical contingency they
contrive, and force banks to accept govm't capital & control,
a priori.

James Arthur

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob Larter wrote:

It's always a matter of degree.

So, tell me why you have socialised Fire Brigades, Comrade!
Do you not worry that undeserving members of the proletariat will catch
fire?

Do you worry that another volunteer fireman will start a huge fire in
Australia, like the recent ones.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 10:07:05 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 03:44:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Nobody wants cradle-to-grave nannying, but there does seem to be an
argument for damping down the consequences of the obvious defects in
the way our minds are constructed, including boom and bust cycles in
the economy.

Hah - when Nu-Labour came to power in the UK, Gordon Brown, then
Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to end 'boom-bust' ! Oops, the
'free market' slipped through his fingers and did it anyway.

Imagine walking up to a working PID controller, and want to change its
output by sticking a signal in there somewhere among a bunch of
different nodes - if you don't pick _exactly_ the right node, it goes
wild!

If it was working, you wouldn't be getting boom/bust cycles. Working PID
controllers don't oscillate.

Yeah, exactly. When it's working, you don't get boom-bust cycles. But if
you want to _CHANGE_ its output to some result other than its natural
equilibrium point, and being the big high-horse ivory-tower know-it-all
that you are, you just stick a signal in, say, the output stage, and say,
"for now and henceforth this will be the output" while ignoring the whole
rest of the circuit that wants to reestablich its equilibrium state. THAT
is what causes the boom-bust cycles.

Is this too advanced of a concept for you?

That's what happens in a command-and-control economy.

That's true of the USSR, but I don't anyone here is advocating that sort
of government as an ideal.

THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS, YOU NINCOMPOOP!!!!!!!!!

And its sympathizers, of course.

Obama is really bipartisan - he's embraced the worst of the Neocon
platform and kept it in place (homeland security, strip-searches at the
airports, wiretapping, tortore of putative "enemies", the assault on the
Middle east); and added a huge steaming pile of socialism on top.

Maybe it's time for the sane people in America to clue up and finally
realize that the real answer is Freedom, it's always been Freedom, and it
will forever be Freedom.

This is merely the answer, of course - the actual implementation will
depend on the cluing up of millions of people to the fact that Freedom is
better than Slavery.

I guess if you've never been locked up in an iron cage, you just can't
appreciate the power to walk out your front door any time of day or night.

("Oh, if you were in prison, you _must_ have been a criminal!)

Is that as far as your intellect can reach?

I did time for failure to pay corruption money to the Insurance Co. lobby.

<first-hand anecdote>
I got rear-ended at the "Yield" sign at the top of an exit ramp - I was
waiting for a clear spot in traffic, which is what "yield" means. I got
rear-ended, and there was reportable damage. I was the victim, the
injured party, in a crash that was so clearly his fault that even the cop
on the spot put it in his report.

But I didn't have insurance. But why should _I_ need insurance? I was just
SITTING there! How does it benefit society to extract hundreds of dollars
from me to obey some imperial edict, when I was minding my own business,
driving safely almost to a fault, and some negligent weinerhead came up
and rear-ended me! IOW, why should the guy who _doesn't cause_ creashes be
required to pay money to those who _do_?

Anyway, at court, some bull dyke judge with PMS wanted to "make an example
of [me]".

I did time for not doing anything intrinsically wrong, or in any way
harmful to anyone, including myself. I did time for not bending over and
letting the Bureaucracy have its way with me.

This pisses me off immensely.

So, next time you say, "It can't happen here", or "It can't happen to me",
you'd better be ready to watch your back.

And we need to rescue America from this cancer that's dead set on
destroying Freedom as our Founding Fathers intended it.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Bob Larter]

Jim Yanik wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in
news:wyjMl.2847$fy.1004@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Bob Larter wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:

Socialism is not an evil it does some things very well and works
for health
care for most of the developed world. The US pays more and gets
less.

In the US our fire departments work on a "socialism" model. That
is, they
are tax supported and come put out your fires on an as needed basis
without
cost. You don't haggle with them, bargain with them, have some
doofus claim
he can't put out this or that fire nor are they tied to your
employment. This model has served us very well for 250 years. Why
should a sick person
be any different than a sick, on fire house?

That socialism depends on the profitable CAPITALISM to prop it up.
Same as any other gov't service.

Yeah, so what? The same is true of libraries, fire brigades & police
departments. Do you think that it's a bad thing that they're all
supported by taxes, etc?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------