As a Canadian, I'm very satisfied with our health care system. A healthy society is a better one, people are more efficient, well adjusted and effective when they're healthy. Canada's success, and many countries share this, is that when the state purchases medical equipment/drugs, the buying power sets the tone for costs, this massive buying power is how why we can lower prices overall. In the US its coercion to redistribute money to private entities, while providing inferior service.
American health care: 17% of GDP. Next highest health care costs in the First World: Switzerland, 11.5% of GDP. France 11.2%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 10%, etc.
@squamish4244 Government pumping money into the industry is the reason why it's so expensive. I suppose you could have the government funding the industry while fixing the prices to be low so that it does stay near 10% of GDP, but you would end up with a massive shortage of service. Friedman would be disappointed with your lack of economic literacy.
@stebecool American health care is ranked, in terms of quality, last among First World nations, and 72nd on a list of 191 nations. So your 'shortage of service' argument makes no sense.
@squamish4244 Exactly. That's not what I said. We don't have a shortage because government doesn't have total control over prices. It just pays whatever the price is because they're spending someone else's money on someone else so financial waste is not a bother. That's how you end up at 16% of GDP. If government ensures that healthcare services will be paid no matter what, there's little incentive for providers to compete on quality and little incentive for patients to get their moneys worth.
@stebecool Use whatever argument you want, but the fact remains that American health care is ranked last among First World nations in terms of quality and first by a large margin in terms of expense. The cost has risen at a substantially faster rate as well over the decades. So socialized medicine appears to be working in all those other countries.
@squamish4244 I don't disagree on the cost and quality of the system. I'm just telling you why it is that way. If government sets the prices, then sure, it'll be whatever % of the GDP they deem it to be in the end. If you have total control of prices and artificially set the price low, you will have a shortage. People will use more healthcare services and there will be fewer people providing it and that's what you find in many of these socialized systems.
It is amazing than anyone gives any credence to anything this little twerp has to say. The "free" market (everyone notice the revolutionary war banner at the beginning suggesting that Mr friedman was a patriot?)is actually just completely unregulated capitalism. This was Britain 150 years ago. The outcomes appalled us. Hence the social democracy of tdy.
His views have failed america too. Jobs gone overseas, real incomes falling steadily since the 70s, rotting cities that were once great. etc
Best system is two tier. If you're rich and want to get expert help. That's fine, you can. But this idea that private health is fair price is BS. They overcharge big time. If Friedman were right it would be more affordable. People like Friedman do not understand how human greed works. In a perfect world the free market system works. But this isn't the perfect world.
@LongBow1600 The price of private health insurance has been inflated due to public health insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. For example, Medicaid pays just 28 cents on each dollar billed. Providers have to make up the difference on private insurance. It isn't private greed, it is politicians screwing up the system.
@knight508 The solution is simple, remove the government out of the Health care system. The government is the real problem of the failure of the USA healthcare by forcing medicare and other trash. Get the government to mind his own business (the justice system) and to respect the constitution. People must stop seeking the government to resolve problems, we instead must remove it from the equation.
Step 1: Gradually lead the health care market away from a free market system. Passing more and more regulations, increasing health care cost and complexity.
Step 2: Point to health care as a disaster of the free market system and demand that that government take it over to save it.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Socialized = bureaucrat decides care in accord with manual. Private = patient decides care in accord with chosen coverage.
@fzqlcs Can you not comprehend a simple principle? In the Friedman model it is you, all by yourself, against a whole establishment. In the US doctors are forever being suborned by drug companies with free holidays etc, doctors are funding millionaire lifestyle, hospitals are driven by share-holder demands for dividends up costs down. And your insurance company will quibble over every dime.
In the UK--in the modern world--healthcare is under democratic control. A whole structure supports you.
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Zim never had the best healthcare system in Africa.Trust me on that one. What do you people do? Read some right wing article or watch some rabble rouser like Glen Beck and accept that it is true? Because it fits in with what you want to believe? Races do not have moralities. Travel a little. Doctors in Britain's NHS earn about $150,000 a year. Consultants more. Isnt that enough? A "national" system aims for healthcare for everyone. Isnt that a national goal youd support?
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Please tell me the source of your information about Zimbabwe. It sounds like some distorted factoid conjured up for politcal reasons. Rhodesia had a reasonable healthcare system, something I know from personal experience. That it is bad there now will have more to do with the kleptocracy that now runs the country--about as "maoist" as Nazi germany. $150000 a year puts US doctors in the top 10% of earners. In the UK too. And we are not talking about consultants, surgeons etc
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Unlike you I have got some hard facts: US Doctors on $150000 a year just edge into the top 4% of earners based on household incomes. Why should they earn more? Especially since the vast majority of them have been educated at public institutions, funded by taxes from all Americans? In the UK doctors get that amount and they too are well into the top 5% of earners. And they were ALL trained in publically funded universities and hospitals(that evil socialism you seem to hate)
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS SO how much more? In truth American spend literally twice as much money per head on health care and yet dont even live as long as the British who far from the healthiest in Europe.
You think of "Brits" as retarded because you are hearing, perhaps for the first time in your life, ideas and thoughts to which you have never been exposed. And dont BS me, I lived in the US for more years than I enjoyed so in a way I know you in a way that you dont really know us. Travel a bit
@fzqlcs Nonsense. Privatized = profit driven greed masters decides care in accord with manual. They spend 250,000 hiring a team to find a reason to cut your medical coverage you moron!
Everything he says against socialized medicine is exactly the same fault in the privatized medicine. Economics dictating the medical attention given. Freidman is a fraud.
@zdrux Private insurance companies restrict access to what you can have. Normal procedures like heart valves can be excluded and called "experimental" even though they are common procedures. Doctors, drugs , treatments, all of them are restricted by the insurance companies. They have 50% denial rates and if you get sick they kick you off. If your child is born underweight or overweight they are kicked off. On and on and on.
@darliegoddess Come to Canada, where we have government health care, and see how much is NOT covered by govt health care. At least in a private model, you can sue if the company doesn't live up to its agreement that you voluntarily signed. Nobody is going to be suing the federal government, believe me.
And right now, I'm paying with my time and labor for people who use this service for fraudulent purposes and I cannot opt out since I've never been at a hospital.
@zdrux I'm Canadian. Lol! You are going to sue a billion dollar company ! LOL! That is so funny! You have more chance of using fart power to reach the moon ! You can vote! Mulroney sold you out, why do you elect utter morons like Harris ? It's stunning how stupid Canadians are when it comes to electing politiians. 60% of our bankruptcies are FROM MEDICAL BILLS , 75% OF THOSE ARE THE FULLY INSURED! Opt out, you mean die! Move to the states, you wont last a month if you get sick!
@darliegoddess I don't vote because government is violence and it does not represent me. It takes my money without asking, then redistributes it to those that it thinks need it more than I do. And If I don't comply, they'll come and break my door down and drag me off to jail, or murder me like they do with so many each year that try to defend themselves. Until you can see that government are illegitimate and taxes are slavery, you won't understand my point of view.
@zdrux I dont see tat I see you opting out because you dont want government. Dont use the roads, hospitals, schools, police , or anything we collectively pay for. Move to a place where you are alone or dont whine.
@darliegoddess Isn't the choice not to participate called freedom? How can you say someone is free when they have no choice if they want to participate in the tax system? You say don't use hospitals, police, etc... ok, how so how do I go about not paying for them now that I don't wish to use them? Can you explain that to me? Surely a free person pays voluntarily? And if not, you must admit you're not living in a free country/society.
@zdrux You are free to go to another country that has no taxes. As a group we have agreed to pay them here for the betterment of the whole. You are safe because of the army's we pay for, safe because of the basic education we pay for, safe because of the social safety net we pay for, the garbage collection, the sanitation. The Fire fighters and police we pay for. Dont want to pay, leave. Go sit in your outhouse or in your garbage pile on you island of nothing. Good luck to you on your own.
@Superorchestra You say as a group we agreed.. that is false because I have not agreed. Payment for national defense can come from tariffs, not violence against me if I chose not to pay taxes.
This whole discussion doesn't revolve around what I GET as far as services go.. the discussion centers around the fact that you must admit you have no choice is opting out, and therefore by definition, it is THEFT. Please admit that to yourself. Anyway, we're both done here I think.
@Radioswim I said he has no choice in paying taxes even if he didn't want to. And I said he cannot choose NOT to have the gov't take his money. These are facts, and not opinions. And therefore it's called theft - that is the definition of theft. I guess it's just too hard for you to understand.
@zdrux Are you really naive enough to think you have freedom in the US? Seriously, do you live in a cave somewhre? Your emails are monitored, your transactions are recorded and passed on to the state at their request; they keep track of the library books you check out and the websites you visit. Your representitives have passed and then renewed a legal framework(the USA Patriot Act) v similar to the Nazis enabling act of 1933. The president can claim arbitrary power and has mercenaries Freedom?
@zdrux What dont you get ? That while this man says governments restrict access and make the quality lower private companies driven by profit cut access even more and murder their customers repeatedly with the same , for money reasons only rules? The question is do you want the person restricting you access to be the one who makes money by you dying or the one that i run by you. Only an idiot would choose privatization, let alone a private monopoly.
What is the "free market arrangement" for someone who has cancer and no money? What is the free market arrangement for the middle class couple when one of them loses their job and they have to choose between health care and paying the mortgage? Friedman on the British Health Service fails to comment on the fact that we Britons live longer than Americans and yet the UK spends approximately HALF(per capita) the amount of money on healthcare. Free market explanation please?
The issues brought up with government-provided healthcare are completely valid. However it is important to keep in mind that private sector medicine is hardly a perfect alternative. For instance, pharmaceutical companies creating slightly modified compounds to maintain artificially high price points. A profit-driven system of medicine that will charge as much as it can get away with. Another consequence of this being medical care will only be available to those with the means to pay for it.
-which, if prices are kept at an artificially high price point, even those who can afford the true value of the treatment they require, could not afford the price point set by market forces. The problem with running a system by free markets is that it recognises customers, not people. It only recognizes people to the minimum necessary to avoid aggravating their consumer base which would hurt profits.
I think public healthcare is dangerous. Govt provides education and our levels are terrible compared to private school levels, why will healthcare be any different? I understand that due to profit drug companies are releasing medicines like candy, but do you think removing profit will inspire ingenuity? it is my experience that the removal of profit potential then humanity gets lazy, and I think public education has suffered from this already. Why be the best when the worst makes the same money?
@byouno93 You're right, you are "just sayin" because that comment was completely off base and didn't make any sense. When ever somebody says they're just saying something, you know something stupid is about to come out.
@1019079 your partially correct. but your objection would only hold merit if you also stand behind the thinking that you average person is as great a person as the two aforementioned great thinkers. I never said that No ingenuity would occur without profit, but the vast majority of mankind will skate through life with the smallest effort once they realize working hard in their chosen profession will have minimal rewards.
@oracle392 also you refer to two great thinkers who practiced the art of thought, Thought is free...but to take it into todays setting and apply it to drug research, and then imply that people will be just as ingenious in their discoveries even though they now require millions of dollars in equipment and fees, and that by dedicating their life to the breakthrough research may gain them nothing more than any other researcher? few would choose the sacrifice, without the reward, humanity are sheep
...like Paul Krugman, who claims to be a Keynesian, advocate reckless spending and infinite expansion of government that Keynes would have (at least publicly) opposed. I say "publicly" because Keynes was a Fabian Socialist and their goal is to slowly implement an international socialist economy dominated by a one world government. He drew up the blueprints for the IMF/World Bank, which is used today as one of the main tools to get us there...along with the bastardization of Keynesian economics
one of Keynes's biggest ideas was that government pay off debt during times of prosperity. Unfortunately, the most fundamental oversight that Keynes had was that the nature of government is not to shrink itself, but to grow itself. A government that has access to the ability to create money will never shrink, nor will it never permanently reduce its debt, regardless of the relative prosperity of the economy. But that is exactly why Hayek is saying that Keynes would not approve of his pupils...
The American Journal of Medicine conservatively estimated that in 2007, 62% of USA bankruptcies were medically related. Most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners,
On the anecdotal side: a friend of mine recently spent 32 hours in the hospital after a mild heart attack and insertion of a stint in a blocked artery. So far, the cost is $103,000 He pays $360/mo for insurance and so far, his portion is over $15,000
@z3r006 thats obvious taxes are taken from peoples wages to fund public healthcare and its worth it , its a countries responsablity to help people who cannot afford their healthcare through private means still get the care they need
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS you're fucking kidding..i hope. BTW: "a lot" is not spelled "alot" ...even 'rich British Blacks' probably know that. "studies show"? which studies? Is the KKK conducting surveys these days? fucking moron.
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Please quote the study that showed "Rich British Blacks" have a higher mortality rate. Higher than whom? And I hope you realise that unlike America where black people have had 400 years of "care" from the society at large but have, in places, third world health, survival, infant mortality. And I get the idea you are suggesting it is their fault in some way. "British Blacks" are almost all either immigrants themselves from the 3rd world, or 1st generation.
@H1TMANactual 1. Engaging someone on the internet in a derogatory name calling fashion and the specific name calling being made specifically by trolls cannot be compared in the form of irony to the creation of a movement which was sparked off by an internet documentary. Your basically apple's to cars. 2. The movement is actually off of several different organizations and people, starting first with Jacque Fresco and then moving on to Technocracy, B. Fuller, etc...
@H1TMANactual 3. Do you even know what a mockumentary is? 4. You didn't answer my question and continuing to be a derogatory asshole isn't helping your case.
@NewSocietyRBE NOPE. You learned of the "movement" by watching a youtube mockumentary. I don't know even know why it's called a "movement" btw, it hasn't moved anywhere in 40 years. Cult would be a more appropriate term.
And yes, when your idea is that all of earth resources can be managed by a super computer (which doesn't exist) and automate all labor to provide a high standard of living for 7 billion people, then yes it deserves to get mocked, not respected.
@H1TMANactual "You learned of the "movement" by watching a youtube mockumentary."
Actually, I learned about the movement through watching a series of lecture by a man known as Peter Joseph called Where are we now, Where are we going and Social Pathology. However I never became interested until I attended a ZDAY event in London that my cousin bought me tickets to. Good to know you're assuming shit based on no information about me at all.
@H1TMANactual "I don't know even know why it's called a "movement" btw, it hasn't moved anywhere in 40 years."
TZM has only been a movement for about 3 years, maybe 4 of your generous. Are you talking about Jacque Fresco's Venus Project? Also the reason it's called the Zeitgeist Movement is in the name itself, do you even know what these words denote and mean? Hell, it's introduced in almost every lecture given by TZM.
@H1TMANactual 1. Managing the resource that we get in a technical and scientific manner through the utilization of technology is not the same thing as "all of earth resources [being managed] by a super computer", that and it is over simplistic to begin with. 2. What is wrong with the idea of automating as much labor as possible so as to raise the standard of living for everyone?
@NewSocietyRBE There is nothing wrong with automation but vague bullshit pipe dreams, doesn't make it a reality. Also technology is mainly driven by profit motive.
Nope. The standard of living and current standard of living has been afforded by one thing - that's the free market. Actually it's central planning that has failed over and over and over again. Might want to grab a history book. Try again.
@H1TMANactual The creation of technology is driven by necessity which is then turned in for a profit. The car was created out of a necessity to travel longer and faster without relying on the well being of a horse. The cell phone was created as a way to allow communication on the go without having to go home to use the device. The laptop was a creation by geeks who wanted portable access to the internet. None of these were driven by profit, so what the hell are you talking about?
@H1TMANactual It's like saying our neolithic ancestors created spears, cooking tools, huts, etc... for a profit, it's like saying the caveman invented the wheel because he wanted some profit.
@H1TMANactual "The standard of living and current standard of living has been afforded by one thing - that's the free market."
This conclusion is based on an ideological benchmark and not scientific scrutiny. Is the standard of living in Somalia really that great? I doubt it...
@NewSocietyRBE Nope. It's based on empirical evidence. Hong Kong 1961-97, per capita went up 87 fold. Examples are dime a dozen. The computer, internet and website you're on is also a product of the market.
And Somalia is anarchy. Basic govt is a desirable part of the market. Like I said, economic illiterate zietard with no earthly idea is here criticizing a Nobel laureate. Don't know if I should be amused or feel pity.
@H1TMANactual 1. The internet was created by a government program in the 1920s to transfer data through long distances. It was then picked up by college professors in the 1960s in order to transfer information and notes between universities without having to use the mailing system. It was then turned over to another government program which expanded it into the modern era of the internet for public usage in the 1980s when private companies began coming onto the scene at the finish.
@H1TMANactual [continuing from 1.] The earliest computer is an analog computer found in ancient Rome, so why the hell are you even speculating on the reason why they created it? And the creation of this website was done as a means to create a community to share videos. The profit never came till later.
@H1TMANactual 2. Somalia has it to where the market and businesses reign free, whether or not Somalia is an Anarchist country is irrelevant. 3. Projecting your own inadequacy onto me in an insulting manner shows to me your interested in pushing an agenda, not interested in engaging in dialogue.
@H1TMANactual Don't try to argue with him, it's clear he doesn't actually care about the problems of central planning, he see's one beneficial part of it and completely ignores the cost, which is the problem with all central planners.
@H1TMANactual "Actually it's central planning that has failed over and over and over again."
Central planning seems to be working well for Hugo Chavez, the only problem seems to be the Trade Embargo which one of the real reasons why Venezuela has issue with the standard of living; which conveniently not a single free market advocate is railing against. Literacy, education, clean water, etc... the country does great in all of these.
@H1TMANactual [continuing 3.] Are you against raising the standard of living for the poor, middle and upper class? 4. So I see you are not open to honest dialogue about an idea, you're only interested in ridicule, this shows someone who is closed minded and also bigoted on many levels to new ideas that are contrary to their own.
@stonecast Plastic surgery doesn't really compare to medical conditions, since it is an elective and non-essential service. There are only limited price impacts by delaying its use, and if you don't see your doctor today for a checkup, it won't increase the cost of plastic surgery (contrast this with skin cancer). It's also an example of an immature market, with strong possibility for innovation and skill diffusion - we'd expect costs to fall as they have in Australia for laser eye surgery.
@stonecast, continued. For example, if you delay buying cheese or a television, you are likely to see only an inflationary impact (for normal cases), or even a deflationary impact (with high competition, technical innovation). If you delay going to the doctor for a minor ailment, this can then escalate to a more severe and more expensive condition. When poor people get serviced on deaths door in US hospitals, they still skip the charge in a lot of cases. You might as well give free doctors.
@stonecast There are indeed a variety of reasons dentists are expensive. Since the government is not involved, it can't be considered as a CONTRIBUTOR to the high prices. However, since Medicare in the 1970s, the real cost of going to the doctor has not risen in Australia, as the government mandated rebate has been pretty stable, and certainly stable compared to CPI/inflation of other services.
Externalities and prevention effects make health a more interesting case than cheese, TVs and radios
Healthcare is not like beans, wheat and cows. There are benefits to prevention, low cost visit to doctors before problems get bad. In Australia, we see this first hand with Dental - dental is not part of our NHS/Medicare system. The price to visit dentists is out of control, the fact public dentists are not available means private dentist charge around 4 - 6 times the rate charged by doctors. People on below average incomes let oral problems fester until major expenditure is needed
@happyhappynuts Healthcare is a service, the consumer chooses whichever company offers the lowest costs for its services, just like say any other type of insurance that also works well in a free market, eg home insurance. Consumers decide when they prefer to go to the doctor, get more checkups etc. Companies will offer whatever the consumers demand so they beat their competition. Surely there are many reasons why dentists are expensive in Australia, prove that it would be cheaper ...
(continued) if it were public. I'll give you an American example, plastic surgery has no real govt intervention and prices have been going down for a long time, the sectors the govt gets in to have increasing prices.
@stonecast The problem with your line of reason is obvious... a lot of services do not cause your death if you do not get them at a certain appointed time based on the idea of you getting denied the service or not being able to pay for it. To state that "healthcare is a service," is also leaving the caveat that you have a possibility of dying if denied it.
OMG! Socialised medicine causes disaster! What rubbish.
search "life expectancy australia usa" You'll quickly see that countries with 'socialised medicine' dominate the top 15. USA and other countries without comprehensive government medical programs don't make the list.
@happyhappynuts Just because most rich countries have socialized medicine, and as a rich country has better health than poorer countries that don't have BIG socialized medicine is a really weak argument. Reality is that most countries in the world have more or less socialized medicine, so it's hard to contrast that with anything, in the US we don't have socislist medicine nor free market medicine, since the govt heavily intervenes in all areas. If it we really free market the US would have the
(cont) best healthcare bar none. That being said, our healthcare isn't that bad despite the govt meddling. Even WHO's ranking places the US in 15th place (Overall Attainment) and this figure is scewed by WHO that values socialist factors more than general quality, e.g. health distribution.
@stonecast i have a feeling that insurance is kind of to blame for high health care costs. high costs mean high premiums all around and i feel that the insurance companies have been less than competitive so much as none would dare bargain with the health care providers for lower costs. its much easier to just fight their customers. but its just a theory. feel free to debate that
The thing that people seem to forget when criticizing socialized medicine, is that under private health care, there is no "waiting" because if you don't have the money for treatment you just don't get treated, PERIOD. In that case, there's nothing to wait on. For profit, private health care "efficient" for those with money. Also, he fails to mention that many of those who are treated can often go deep into debt for medical care. How is that the model of efficiency? The solution is balance.
@fzqlcs Say that to a five year old in need of on going medical care whose parent has just lost their job and their health care. The family goes bankrupt trying to pay and the public ends up paying anyway.
Health care is not unlike education: it has to be available to everyone if a nation wants its economy performing at optimum level. Tens of thousands die each year of treatable conditions simply because they do not have the ability to obtain health care. That costs everyone.
@amasonsk1 You build a case on false premises. Just give me a direct answer to these questions. Why does it require health insurance for a five year old in order for the economy to perform at optimum level? What treatable condition kills tens of thousands of Americans each year? Is every bum entitled to heart transplant? If so, whose? Should people with two eyes be required to give one to a blind man?
@fzqlcs 1. We seem to think that educating the 5 year old at pubic expense is worthwhile It is definitely good for the economy to have a supply of well educated young people. It seems to follow that enabling the 5 year old to survive to adulthood might also be a good investment. 2. It has been estimated that in the U.S. 75-100,000 people die annually from treatable conditions because they do not have access to healthcare. See: Measuring the Health of Nations, Health Affairs, Jan 8, 2008.
@amasonsk 1. i do not accept that public education is a worthwhile expenditure and suspect children may be educated better in a laissez-faire economy. 2. a number pulled out the collective asses of a socialist propaganda mechanism, kinda like one in three women are raped. remember that one?
@fzqlcs Name one country that has a successful education system that is not publicly funded. Can you name an economically healthy state that does not have publicly funded schooling?
@amasonsk1 what kind of education systems do the economically unhealthy nation have? Can you name one civilized nation that does not have widespread drug use? Does that make the case it is a good thing?
@fzqlcs Re 2. The figures I gave are taken from an update of an ongoing study of health data from many countries of "amenable mortalities", that is deaths of people under 75 years of age that are preventable by timely treatment. The US came in last. "According to the authors, if the U.S. had been able reduce amenable mortality to the average rate achieved by the three top-performing countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths annually by the end of the study period."
@fzqlcs Treatable conditions such as lupus erythematosus. Nikki White died of lupus at 32. She could not get healthcare. She died from lack of access to treatment. Other conditions, treatable cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. These can be expensive to treat. If you don't have healthcare, you don't get the expensive treatment. 3. Who is talking about giving everyone heart transplant or taking one of your eyes? That is just mindless fear-mongering.
@amasonsk1 Now I get it. You are from Canada and think the American poor do not have healthcare. They do. It is called Medi-Caid and its in every state. There are some uninsured and some who are not covered to pre-existing conditions and most simply are younger consumers who choose to spend their money elsewhere. What you condone is a right to take the rightful property of one man and give to the benefit of someone else. A rose by any other name smells as the same. So does theft.
@fzqlcs Are you opposed to laws that require you to buy car insurance? Every state requires you to buy car insurance if you drive a car. When someone else makes a claim for injuries or damage is that not giving your property to benefit someone else. What is wrong with that?
@amasonsk1 When someone wins a claim against you because you have injured them or damaged their property and you pay, it is justice. When you earn money, violate no one else's rights, and yet are forced to pay for a complete stranger's flu shot, it is something very different from justice.
@fzqlcs And you earned that money without relying on the public? You didn't use publicly paid roads or infrastructure, education, communications? You didn't rely on knowledge acquired from other people, including those who have lived in the past? You did it all by yourself?
@amasonsk1 Do think I don't pay tax? It is one thing to pay tax for common service, such as fire protection, law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, roads, bridges, etc. It is another to take the property of one man and give it to another.
@amasonsk1 Yes, our taxes are stolen from us then used to pay for infrastructure, since we use those roads does that mean that the govt in turn can continue and take even more money from us for even more inefficient projects? Your other argument that people learn things from other people has nothing to do with the govt, so I don't get it...
@stonecast Is there a better, more efficient way to build and pay for roads? re: education - Do you think business is going to pay for someone to get a highschool diploma or a university degree? If govt doesn't do it, it will be up to the individual. What child with poor parents is going to be educated under that kind of a system? re: health care: what child with poor parents without health insurance is going to get medical attention when needed?
@cminksful Yeah. I forgot about New Hampshire: Live free or die; and if you are free (of insurance) and have a car accident that was your fault, your family enjoys the experience of being poor. Great choice. That's why the other 49 states have mandatory car insurance.
@amasonsk1 yea im not sure what your position is on gov health insurance i was just pointing out that not all states require it....i do think auto insurance should be a requirement because for the simple reason if you crash your car into someone and its your fault then you should be held liable but health care is not the same
@amasonsk1 Yes, you should be allowed to decide what is the best use of your money, to save it on insurance every month but risk the fact that you may cause an accident and have nothing to fall back on or not. That's your call to decide what benefits you the most, maybe you drive very little a month so you'd rather save the insurance money, or are extremely careful all the time. Freedom is beautiful embrace it, get rid of the nanny state.
@stonecast The risk that govt is concerned about is not that you may go bankrupt. Govt is concerned that injured people will not be compensated. The problem is that unless you have $ millions you may not be able to pay for the damage you cause, so a person you injured won't be fully compensated without insurance. Do you not think government should act in the public interest?
@DearCongress Not having money on hand does not mean you do not get treated when needed. Secondly, private means quality at competitive price. Government intervention into the healthcare market is the reason prices are so high. Government inevitable harms everything it touches. Socialistic programs only survive in times when the economy is great. However, these programs create a dependency so they are not lifted when the economy goes in the tank.
@DearCongress Healthcare like every other industry should provide the best quality service/goods for the cheapest price. The free market does that with the price structure, and competition, that's why cellphones and lcd screens keep going down in price and up in quality. Now ofcourse those with no resources won't be able to enjoy certain services/goods including houses and healthcare, even if it is cheaper with the free market. What should we do in those cases? Well charity works, and
(cont) most free market advocates agree, if the govt is to help in these extreme cases it is better to subsidize the consumer and not the industry, with vouchers for example, that way the free market mechanisms are still in place, e.g., competition.
Many want free healthcare, forgetting that it is not really for free, someone always pays for it. However worse is as healthcare get socialized, the "free" healthcare people wish so much to have may not be given to them, because of the many waiting-lists. And like it is not really free it will end up costing more for less, but you won't see this because the money used to pay for all this will never be shown to you.
I would have liked to remind Mr MF that there is a fking basic difference between free markets and making tons of money and HEALTHCARE. It is about life and death! And we saw how your great free markets worked when we had to bail them ALL out. So I rest my case.
@mainhoon1 In a free market, there are no government bailouts. That is the point. Bailouts are a result of crony capitalism, a total perversion of free market principles.
What's with this "We" shit, kemo sabe? Bail-outs, whether agreeable or not, were financed by bond buyers; you didn't lose, nor are on the hook for one thin dime.
Yet another unselfconsciously admitting ironic example of the culture of entitled collectivism.
@mainhoon1 Free markets aren't good because they benefit only the supply side (companies) but because they also benefit the consumer with more options, better quality for less money, since the companies need to compete amoungst themselves for consumers. The housing market bubble was created by govt with non market low interest rates and govt entities assuring the market that they were secured by the tax payers. Banks played just into it and lost, they shouldn't have been bailed out though.
It's not like there is some order being given to University professors that they must teach this type of economics or that. Not at all. It just happens to be that the Keynesian, New Keynesians, etc have huge popularity. Austrian economists and monetarists (as Dr Friedman was), are in the minority.
In fact one of my macro economics professors is a self-proclaimed New Keynesian but he holds Milton Friedman in very high esteem indeed and constantly reminds us of what Friedman thought.
Sorry this is just untrue. Im currently an MS in Economics graduate student and a huge believer in almost everything Friedman taught and one of his biggest admirers. He he is constant in all my references.
Abolish dems! They send their paid for by soros robots to post ignorance. just look below at the lies. Milton Friedman rules socialist Big-Brother dems suck!@
Hmmmm, it's been awhile since he gave this speech. I wonder what insurance premiums were in 1978. I wonder what an economist thinks about the way privatized medicine works now with it's lawsuits, advertising costs, facility duplication, and frightened doctors ordering unnecessary tests to cover their butts against lawsuits.
I lived in Canada for 30 years and the socialized health care there was fantastic and cost less than half the same care as in the US.
Hmmm Medicare Medicaid etc. I think maybe he was exactly right. You are claiming that the U.S. has a completely non-socialized system now; but that is not the case. the socialization of the system, mixed with frivolous lawsuits has wrecked our healthcare. however, it's still the best in the world. maybe expensive, but Good. The healthcare in Canada is horrible by comparison.
@JohnyKimbled I'm majoring bullshitting right now, or at least that's what it feels like. It's tough to write a paper that contradicts natural law, and put your name on it for an arbitrary piece of paper, but that's the world I live in.
@nothernhit how are you supposed to get the best care when your a sick person in a low income bracket, who loses their job in the midst of a massive recession? No employee health insurance and no insurance company willing to provide an already sick person with coverage for the medicine they need or the doctors they have to see. Then when you do get care you're crippled with massive debt that'll plague you financially for the rest of your life. What kind of barbaric system is that?
@ktown1389 What kind of barbaric system in which every person (including the poor) indirectly pays for an expensive healthcare system that doesn't provide sufficient quality and level of necessity to which it is supposed to address. Why straightjacket the whole nation at the cost of a few? You have to understand that no one is left out even in a privatized healthcare system where hospitals are privately managed and funded.
@ktown1389 Moreover, a competitive healthcare system will ease the cost of healthcare if everyone used it. It's the founding competitive nature of a capitalist free-market system keeps the prices low. My family isn't particularly rich either, but in the past my elders experienced appendicitis to the point at which their appendix actually burst. They got medical care straight away, and were able to afford the cost for the surgery under a predominantly privatized healthcare system of the time.
@ktown1389 Healthcare like every other industry should provide the best quality service/goods for the cheapest price. The free market does that with the price structure, and competition, that's why cellphones and lcd screens keep going down in price and up in quality. Now ofcourse those with no resources won't be able to enjoy certain services/goods including houses and healthcare, even if it is cheaper with the free market. What should we do in those cases? Well charity works, and
(cont) most free market advocates agree, if the govt is to help in these extreme cases it is better to subsidize the consumer and not the industry, with vouchers for example, that way the free market mechanisms are still in place, e.g., competition. The alternative is to have an inefficient govt bureaucracy run healthcare and fail at it. Keep in mind that we don't have free market healthcare, we have govt involved mainly to benefit big pharma without having to compete for consumers.
id like to know what happens if you are on a low wage and cannot afford health insurance , and get cancer will you get the same treatment as someone who earns 200,000 a year and has top of the range healthcare ? and have the same chance at beating your cancer ? if the answer is no . how can you live with yourself agreeing with such a system , to not offer the sick their needed healthcare simply because they cannot afford it is equal to goverment sanctioned murder
@DorianDietrichBlog There are documented cures for cancer but the governments of the world label them 'quack' treatments, outlaw their implementation, and strip the good doctors who use them of their licenses. Corporatism is at the heart of modern 'health care' and that's the real problem. If they can't make tons of money from something, they lobby to have it discredited and, eventually, outlawed.
Curing cancer is CHEAP but it's also illegal. Thanks, Big Brother!
@DorianDietrichBlog Well if you believe the govt shouldn't determine which treatment is proper and should be used, that the patient/consumer should determine that, then you are partially agreeing that free markets are better than central planning. This is one of the benefits of free markets, consumers determine what to use or not to use, govt can get corrupted to outlaw competition (atleast to an extent) to benefit their friends in big pharma.
@stonecast "Well if you believe the govt shouldn't determine which treatment is proper and should be used, that the patient/consumer should determine that, then you are partially agreeing that free markets are better than central planning."
The problem with your statement is obvious, governments DO NOT and have NEVER decided what treatments are proper or not, the medical industry and the peer-review process determine that. Great job in spewing propaganda.
As a Canadian, I'm very satisfied with our health care system. A healthy society is a better one, people are more efficient, well adjusted and effective when they're healthy. Canada's success, and many countries share this, is that when the state purchases medical equipment/drugs, the buying power sets the tone for costs, this massive buying power is how why we can lower prices overall. In the US its coercion to redistribute money to private entities, while providing inferior service.
Muslim91 1 day ago
American health care: 17% of GDP. Next highest health care costs in the First World: Switzerland, 11.5% of GDP. France 11.2%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 10%, etc.
Friedman is missing something here.
squamish4244 2 days ago
@squamish4244 Government pumping money into the industry is the reason why it's so expensive. I suppose you could have the government funding the industry while fixing the prices to be low so that it does stay near 10% of GDP, but you would end up with a massive shortage of service. Friedman would be disappointed with your lack of economic literacy.
stebecool 2 days ago
@stebecool American health care is ranked, in terms of quality, last among First World nations, and 72nd on a list of 191 nations. So your 'shortage of service' argument makes no sense.
squamish4244 2 days ago
@squamish4244 Exactly. That's not what I said. We don't have a shortage because government doesn't have total control over prices. It just pays whatever the price is because they're spending someone else's money on someone else so financial waste is not a bother. That's how you end up at 16% of GDP. If government ensures that healthcare services will be paid no matter what, there's little incentive for providers to compete on quality and little incentive for patients to get their moneys worth.
stebecool 2 days ago
@stebecool Use whatever argument you want, but the fact remains that American health care is ranked last among First World nations in terms of quality and first by a large margin in terms of expense. The cost has risen at a substantially faster rate as well over the decades. So socialized medicine appears to be working in all those other countries.
squamish4244 2 days ago
@squamish4244 I don't disagree on the cost and quality of the system. I'm just telling you why it is that way. If government sets the prices, then sure, it'll be whatever % of the GDP they deem it to be in the end. If you have total control of prices and artificially set the price low, you will have a shortage. People will use more healthcare services and there will be fewer people providing it and that's what you find in many of these socialized systems.
stebecool 2 days ago
@stebecool The United States has fewer doctors per person than most OECD countries, and the same number as Canada.
squamish4244 2 days ago
@stebecool Canada also pays 70% of its health care costs through the government, and the United States, 46%.
squamish4244 2 days ago
It is amazing than anyone gives any credence to anything this little twerp has to say. The "free" market (everyone notice the revolutionary war banner at the beginning suggesting that Mr friedman was a patriot?)is actually just completely unregulated capitalism. This was Britain 150 years ago. The outcomes appalled us. Hence the social democracy of tdy.
His views have failed america too. Jobs gone overseas, real incomes falling steadily since the 70s, rotting cities that were once great. etc
CobinRain 2 days ago
Best system is two tier. If you're rich and want to get expert help. That's fine, you can. But this idea that private health is fair price is BS. They overcharge big time. If Friedman were right it would be more affordable. People like Friedman do not understand how human greed works. In a perfect world the free market system works. But this isn't the perfect world.
LongBow1600 3 days ago
@LongBow1600 The price of private health insurance has been inflated due to public health insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. For example, Medicaid pays just 28 cents on each dollar billed. Providers have to make up the difference on private insurance. It isn't private greed, it is politicians screwing up the system.
fzqlcs 3 days ago 2
@fzqlcs The government makes problems them blame others.
ditendo 3 days ago
@ditendo And then presents a "solution". A very clever trifactor that gets idiots to agree with bigger and bigger governments.
knight508 2 days ago
@knight508 The solution is simple, remove the government out of the Health care system. The government is the real problem of the failure of the USA healthcare by forcing medicare and other trash. Get the government to mind his own business (the justice system) and to respect the constitution. People must stop seeking the government to resolve problems, we instead must remove it from the equation.
ditendo 2 days ago
@fzqlcs Do you think your auto insurance company charges you fairly? The only thing insurance is good for, is for the people running it.
LongBow1600 3 days ago
Step 1: Gradually lead the health care market away from a free market system. Passing more and more regulations, increasing health care cost and complexity.
Step 2: Point to health care as a disaster of the free market system and demand that that government take it over to save it.
cdoftx 4 days ago 5
@cdoftx Step 3 ????
Step 4 Profit
hokieneer17 4 days ago
@hokieneer17 lol
cdoftx 3 days ago
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Socialized = bureaucrat decides care in accord with manual. Private = patient decides care in accord with chosen coverage.
fzqlcs 1 week ago
@fzqlcs Can you not comprehend a simple principle? In the Friedman model it is you, all by yourself, against a whole establishment. In the US doctors are forever being suborned by drug companies with free holidays etc, doctors are funding millionaire lifestyle, hospitals are driven by share-holder demands for dividends up costs down. And your insurance company will quibble over every dime.
In the UK--in the modern world--healthcare is under democratic control. A whole structure supports you.
CobinRain 1 week ago
@CobinRain
Oh yeah Doctors can spend like 400,000 dollars on their college.
But, It is wrong for us to pay them for their expertise?
Zimbbabwe once had the best healthcare system in Africa.
Just they couldn't pay for it.
They printed money to pay for it to collapse from inflation
Now they have no choice. Nothing. No private healthcare, No public healthcare.
Just a failed creation.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 4 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Zim never had the best healthcare system in Africa.Trust me on that one. What do you people do? Read some right wing article or watch some rabble rouser like Glen Beck and accept that it is true? Because it fits in with what you want to believe? Races do not have moralities. Travel a little. Doctors in Britain's NHS earn about $150,000 a year. Consultants more. Isnt that enough? A "national" system aims for healthcare for everyone. Isnt that a national goal youd support?
CobinRain 4 days ago
@CobinRain
Zimbabwe not that long ago was praised for having one of the best healthcare systems & education systems in Africa.
It all fell because of the Maoist influenced Zimbbabwe government.
My father is a teacher in New York & he makes 100,000 a year.
I think a doctor should make more than 150,000 a year.
given how much education spending they have to pay for thei expertise.
My Friend is a lineman working on telephone poles & makes 90,000 a year
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 4 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Please tell me the source of your information about Zimbabwe. It sounds like some distorted factoid conjured up for politcal reasons. Rhodesia had a reasonable healthcare system, something I know from personal experience. That it is bad there now will have more to do with the kleptocracy that now runs the country--about as "maoist" as Nazi germany. $150000 a year puts US doctors in the top 10% of earners. In the UK too. And we are not talking about consultants, surgeons etc
CobinRain 3 days ago
@CobinRain
Zimbabwe once had the best health care system in Africa, but it has recently collapsed due to the country's hyperinflation rate and political crisis.
I saw the arcticle years ago.
About even rich Black women in Britain still having higher infant mortality rates.
It may take me awhile to find the arcticle again.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Unlike you I have got some hard facts: US Doctors on $150000 a year just edge into the top 4% of earners based on household incomes. Why should they earn more? Especially since the vast majority of them have been educated at public institutions, funded by taxes from all Americans? In the UK doctors get that amount and they too are well into the top 5% of earners. And they were ALL trained in publically funded universities and hospitals(that evil socialism you seem to hate)
CobinRain 3 days ago
@CobinRain
Why shouldn't Doctors get paid more?
Doctors put alot of money & hard time into gaining the expertise to become a Doctor.
Thus they are deserving of money.
I think you Brits have to be one of the most retarded people I have ever encountered in my life.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS SO how much more? In truth American spend literally twice as much money per head on health care and yet dont even live as long as the British who far from the healthiest in Europe.
You think of "Brits" as retarded because you are hearing, perhaps for the first time in your life, ideas and thoughts to which you have never been exposed. And dont BS me, I lived in the US for more years than I enjoyed so in a way I know you in a way that you dont really know us. Travel a bit
CobinRain 3 days ago
@CobinRain
Actually as a child I was for socialized healthcare & more government programs.
That is before I have grown & realized it was not such a good idea.
Socialzied healthcare will lead to loss of jobs.
It will depend on government funding so anytime that goes out that is people's lives on the line.
We can't even trust our government with social security a retirement fund.
Private healthcare is better.
You can get more of what you want.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 3 days ago
@fzqlcs Nonsense. Privatized = profit driven greed masters decides care in accord with manual. They spend 250,000 hiring a team to find a reason to cut your medical coverage you moron!
darliegoddess 1 week ago
Everything he says against socialized medicine is exactly the same fault in the privatized medicine. Economics dictating the medical attention given. Freidman is a fraud.
darliegoddess 1 week ago
@darliegoddess Can you give an example of some of the things you mention? How is a privatized service the same as a government (socialized) service?
zdrux 1 week ago
@zdrux Private insurance companies restrict access to what you can have. Normal procedures like heart valves can be excluded and called "experimental" even though they are common procedures. Doctors, drugs , treatments, all of them are restricted by the insurance companies. They have 50% denial rates and if you get sick they kick you off. If your child is born underweight or overweight they are kicked off. On and on and on.
darliegoddess 1 week ago
@darliegoddess Come to Canada, where we have government health care, and see how much is NOT covered by govt health care. At least in a private model, you can sue if the company doesn't live up to its agreement that you voluntarily signed. Nobody is going to be suing the federal government, believe me.
And right now, I'm paying with my time and labor for people who use this service for fraudulent purposes and I cannot opt out since I've never been at a hospital.
zdrux 1 week ago
@zdrux I'm Canadian. Lol! You are going to sue a billion dollar company ! LOL! That is so funny! You have more chance of using fart power to reach the moon ! You can vote! Mulroney sold you out, why do you elect utter morons like Harris ? It's stunning how stupid Canadians are when it comes to electing politiians. 60% of our bankruptcies are FROM MEDICAL BILLS , 75% OF THOSE ARE THE FULLY INSURED! Opt out, you mean die! Move to the states, you wont last a month if you get sick!
darliegoddess 1 week ago
@darliegoddess I don't vote because government is violence and it does not represent me. It takes my money without asking, then redistributes it to those that it thinks need it more than I do. And If I don't comply, they'll come and break my door down and drag me off to jail, or murder me like they do with so many each year that try to defend themselves. Until you can see that government are illegitimate and taxes are slavery, you won't understand my point of view.
zdrux 1 week ago
@zdrux I dont see tat I see you opting out because you dont want government. Dont use the roads, hospitals, schools, police , or anything we collectively pay for. Move to a place where you are alone or dont whine.
darliegoddess 1 week ago
@darliegoddess Isn't the choice not to participate called freedom? How can you say someone is free when they have no choice if they want to participate in the tax system? You say don't use hospitals, police, etc... ok, how so how do I go about not paying for them now that I don't wish to use them? Can you explain that to me? Surely a free person pays voluntarily? And if not, you must admit you're not living in a free country/society.
zdrux 1 week ago
@zdrux You are free to go to another country that has no taxes. As a group we have agreed to pay them here for the betterment of the whole. You are safe because of the army's we pay for, safe because of the basic education we pay for, safe because of the social safety net we pay for, the garbage collection, the sanitation. The Fire fighters and police we pay for. Dont want to pay, leave. Go sit in your outhouse or in your garbage pile on you island of nothing. Good luck to you on your own.
Superorchestra 1 week ago
@Superorchestra You say as a group we agreed.. that is false because I have not agreed. Payment for national defense can come from tariffs, not violence against me if I chose not to pay taxes.
This whole discussion doesn't revolve around what I GET as far as services go.. the discussion centers around the fact that you must admit you have no choice is opting out, and therefore by definition, it is THEFT. Please admit that to yourself. Anyway, we're both done here I think.
zdrux 1 week ago
@zdrux how can he admit something that isn't true. He's already stated it. Here I am stating in even more blankly "You are free to leave"
Radioswim 6 days ago
@Radioswim I said he has no choice in paying taxes even if he didn't want to. And I said he cannot choose NOT to have the gov't take his money. These are facts, and not opinions. And therefore it's called theft - that is the definition of theft. I guess it's just too hard for you to understand.
zdrux 5 days ago
@zdrux Are you really naive enough to think you have freedom in the US? Seriously, do you live in a cave somewhre? Your emails are monitored, your transactions are recorded and passed on to the state at their request; they keep track of the library books you check out and the websites you visit. Your representitives have passed and then renewed a legal framework(the USA Patriot Act) v similar to the Nazis enabling act of 1933. The president can claim arbitrary power and has mercenaries Freedom?
CobinRain 4 days ago
@CobinRain Uhmm, this is exactly what I'm trying to say in my posts lol. I'm glad at least you're getting it!
zdrux 3 days ago
@darliegoddess
Yes, you can't have roads or schools with Government?
I think Police being non Government is very dangerous.
It would ensure that the Police become like cops in Mexico but probably alot worse.
But, even so most things can become privately owned.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 4 days ago
@zdrux What dont you get ? That while this man says governments restrict access and make the quality lower private companies driven by profit cut access even more and murder their customers repeatedly with the same , for money reasons only rules? The question is do you want the person restricting you access to be the one who makes money by you dying or the one that i run by you. Only an idiot would choose privatization, let alone a private monopoly.
darliegoddess 1 week ago
What is the "free market arrangement" for someone who has cancer and no money? What is the free market arrangement for the middle class couple when one of them loses their job and they have to choose between health care and paying the mortgage? Friedman on the British Health Service fails to comment on the fact that we Britons live longer than Americans and yet the UK spends approximately HALF(per capita) the amount of money on healthcare. Free market explanation please?
CobinRain 1 week ago
@CobinRain cheers
freechechnya2 1 week ago
The issues brought up with government-provided healthcare are completely valid. However it is important to keep in mind that private sector medicine is hardly a perfect alternative. For instance, pharmaceutical companies creating slightly modified compounds to maintain artificially high price points. A profit-driven system of medicine that will charge as much as it can get away with. Another consequence of this being medical care will only be available to those with the means to pay for it.
InnuendoXP 2 weeks ago
-which, if prices are kept at an artificially high price point, even those who can afford the true value of the treatment they require, could not afford the price point set by market forces. The problem with running a system by free markets is that it recognises customers, not people. It only recognizes people to the minimum necessary to avoid aggravating their consumer base which would hurt profits.
InnuendoXP 2 weeks ago
I think public healthcare is dangerous. Govt provides education and our levels are terrible compared to private school levels, why will healthcare be any different? I understand that due to profit drug companies are releasing medicines like candy, but do you think removing profit will inspire ingenuity? it is my experience that the removal of profit potential then humanity gets lazy, and I think public education has suffered from this already. Why be the best when the worst makes the same money?
oracle392 2 weeks ago
@oracle392 I wish Einstein or Darwin were here to tell you off. If you look objectively you'll find profit has very little to do with ingenuity.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Einstein and Darwin weren't economists. Just sayin'
byouno93 2 weeks ago
@byouno93 You're right, you are "just sayin" because that comment was completely off base and didn't make any sense. When ever somebody says they're just saying something, you know something stupid is about to come out.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 wonderful logic there.
byouno93 2 weeks ago
@1019079 your partially correct. but your objection would only hold merit if you also stand behind the thinking that you average person is as great a person as the two aforementioned great thinkers. I never said that No ingenuity would occur without profit, but the vast majority of mankind will skate through life with the smallest effort once they realize working hard in their chosen profession will have minimal rewards.
oracle392 2 weeks ago
@oracle392 also you refer to two great thinkers who practiced the art of thought, Thought is free...but to take it into todays setting and apply it to drug research, and then imply that people will be just as ingenious in their discoveries even though they now require millions of dollars in equipment and fees, and that by dedicating their life to the breakthrough research may gain them nothing more than any other researcher? few would choose the sacrifice, without the reward, humanity are sheep
oracle392 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
oracle392 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...like Paul Krugman, who claims to be a Keynesian, advocate reckless spending and infinite expansion of government that Keynes would have (at least publicly) opposed. I say "publicly" because Keynes was a Fabian Socialist and their goal is to slowly implement an international socialist economy dominated by a one world government. He drew up the blueprints for the IMF/World Bank, which is used today as one of the main tools to get us there...along with the bastardization of Keynesian economics
ACDC7369 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one of Keynes's biggest ideas was that government pay off debt during times of prosperity. Unfortunately, the most fundamental oversight that Keynes had was that the nature of government is not to shrink itself, but to grow itself. A government that has access to the ability to create money will never shrink, nor will it never permanently reduce its debt, regardless of the relative prosperity of the economy. But that is exactly why Hayek is saying that Keynes would not approve of his pupils...
ACDC7369 2 weeks ago
US Healthcare is an overpriced rubbish.
SuperThe86 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
meduchile1 1 month ago
2009 World Health Organization statistics US / UK:
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $) US 46,790 / UK 36,240
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years) US 76/81 / UK 78/82
Probability of dying under five (per 1000 live births) US 8 / UK 5
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1000 population) US 134/78 / UK 95/58
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2009) US 7,410 / UK 3,399
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2009) US 16.2 / UK 9.3
mmontana 1 month ago
Comment removed
mmontana 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The American Journal of Medicine conservatively estimated that in 2007, 62% of USA bankruptcies were medically related. Most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners,
On the anecdotal side: a friend of mine recently spent 32 hours in the hospital after a mild heart attack and insertion of a stint in a blocked artery. So far, the cost is $103,000 He pays $360/mo for insurance and so far, his portion is over $15,000
...and the bills are still rolling in.
mmontana 1 month ago
@mmontana are these government spending or household spending on health care?
z3r006 1 month ago
Comment removed
mmontana 1 month ago
@z3r006 thats obvious taxes are taken from peoples wages to fund public healthcare and its worth it , its a countries responsablity to help people who cannot afford their healthcare through private means still get the care they need
DorianDietrichBlog 1 month ago
@mmontana
The U.S.A is a huge country.
With much bigger demographics.
Alot more of the U.S.A is very rural.
With alot more dangerous fields in the U.S.A like lumber jacks & farmers.
Those statistics are pretty comparable. Don't forget certain races tend to have differences in morality.
Studies showed in Britain that even rich Blacks have a higher Infant Morality rate.
So, there are alot more factors in the U.S.A
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 4 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS you're fucking kidding..i hope. BTW: "a lot" is not spelled "alot" ...even 'rich British Blacks' probably know that. "studies show"? which studies? Is the KKK conducting surveys these days? fucking moron.
mmontana 4 days ago
@mmontana
A study showed that British Blacks do have a higher Infant mortality rate.
That Rich British Blacks still have a higher infant mortality rate.
I don't really care If it is A lot
Should be one word anyways.
You Western Europeans always seem to get so anal & obsessive compulsive.
yet, seem to have trouble thinking.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 4 days ago
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS Please quote the study that showed "Rich British Blacks" have a higher mortality rate. Higher than whom? And I hope you realise that unlike America where black people have had 400 years of "care" from the society at large but have, in places, third world health, survival, infant mortality. And I get the idea you are suggesting it is their fault in some way. "British Blacks" are almost all either immigrants themselves from the 3rd world, or 1st generation.
CobinRain 3 days ago
Interesting that this entire talk is based on 1. Shitty rhetoric and 2. A false dichotomy.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@NewSocietyRBE How is that Zeitard pipe dream coming along?
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Are you actually going to engage in a conversation or throw out made up names created on the internet by trolls?
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@NewSocietyRBE Ironic considering your whole ideology is based on a mockumentary you saw on the internet.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual 1. Engaging someone on the internet in a derogatory name calling fashion and the specific name calling being made specifically by trolls cannot be compared in the form of irony to the creation of a movement which was sparked off by an internet documentary. Your basically apple's to cars. 2. The movement is actually off of several different organizations and people, starting first with Jacque Fresco and then moving on to Technocracy, B. Fuller, etc...
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual 3. Do you even know what a mockumentary is? 4. You didn't answer my question and continuing to be a derogatory asshole isn't helping your case.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@NewSocietyRBE NOPE. You learned of the "movement" by watching a youtube mockumentary. I don't know even know why it's called a "movement" btw, it hasn't moved anywhere in 40 years. Cult would be a more appropriate term.
And yes, when your idea is that all of earth resources can be managed by a super computer (which doesn't exist) and automate all labor to provide a high standard of living for 7 billion people, then yes it deserves to get mocked, not respected.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "You learned of the "movement" by watching a youtube mockumentary."
Actually, I learned about the movement through watching a series of lecture by a man known as Peter Joseph called Where are we now, Where are we going and Social Pathology. However I never became interested until I attended a ZDAY event in London that my cousin bought me tickets to. Good to know you're assuming shit based on no information about me at all.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "I don't know even know why it's called a "movement" btw, it hasn't moved anywhere in 40 years."
TZM has only been a movement for about 3 years, maybe 4 of your generous. Are you talking about Jacque Fresco's Venus Project? Also the reason it's called the Zeitgeist Movement is in the name itself, do you even know what these words denote and mean? Hell, it's introduced in almost every lecture given by TZM.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "Cult would be a more appropriate term."
So because of a lack of success it's a cult right? Good to know Amnesty International is also a cult.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual 1. Managing the resource that we get in a technical and scientific manner through the utilization of technology is not the same thing as "all of earth resources [being managed] by a super computer", that and it is over simplistic to begin with. 2. What is wrong with the idea of automating as much labor as possible so as to raise the standard of living for everyone?
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@NewSocietyRBE There is nothing wrong with automation but vague bullshit pipe dreams, doesn't make it a reality. Also technology is mainly driven by profit motive.
Nope. The standard of living and current standard of living has been afforded by one thing - that's the free market. Actually it's central planning that has failed over and over and over again. Might want to grab a history book. Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual The creation of technology is driven by necessity which is then turned in for a profit. The car was created out of a necessity to travel longer and faster without relying on the well being of a horse. The cell phone was created as a way to allow communication on the go without having to go home to use the device. The laptop was a creation by geeks who wanted portable access to the internet. None of these were driven by profit, so what the hell are you talking about?
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual It's like saying our neolithic ancestors created spears, cooking tools, huts, etc... for a profit, it's like saying the caveman invented the wheel because he wanted some profit.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "The standard of living and current standard of living has been afforded by one thing - that's the free market."
This conclusion is based on an ideological benchmark and not scientific scrutiny. Is the standard of living in Somalia really that great? I doubt it...
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@NewSocietyRBE Nope. It's based on empirical evidence. Hong Kong 1961-97, per capita went up 87 fold. Examples are dime a dozen. The computer, internet and website you're on is also a product of the market.
And Somalia is anarchy. Basic govt is a desirable part of the market. Like I said, economic illiterate zietard with no earthly idea is here criticizing a Nobel laureate. Don't know if I should be amused or feel pity.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual 1. The internet was created by a government program in the 1920s to transfer data through long distances. It was then picked up by college professors in the 1960s in order to transfer information and notes between universities without having to use the mailing system. It was then turned over to another government program which expanded it into the modern era of the internet for public usage in the 1980s when private companies began coming onto the scene at the finish.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual [continuing from 1.] The earliest computer is an analog computer found in ancient Rome, so why the hell are you even speculating on the reason why they created it? And the creation of this website was done as a means to create a community to share videos. The profit never came till later.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual 2. Somalia has it to where the market and businesses reign free, whether or not Somalia is an Anarchist country is irrelevant. 3. Projecting your own inadequacy onto me in an insulting manner shows to me your interested in pushing an agenda, not interested in engaging in dialogue.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Oh yah, forgot to mention that you calling me an Economic Illiterate is pretty funny considering I teach Economics and Anthropology.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual Don't try to argue with him, it's clear he doesn't actually care about the problems of central planning, he see's one beneficial part of it and completely ignores the cost, which is the problem with all central planners.
Mezey5 1 month ago
@Mezey5 Yeah I stopped reading his drivel long time ago :)
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual "Actually it's central planning that has failed over and over and over again."
Central planning seems to be working well for Hugo Chavez, the only problem seems to be the Trade Embargo which one of the real reasons why Venezuela has issue with the standard of living; which conveniently not a single free market advocate is railing against. Literacy, education, clean water, etc... the country does great in all of these.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@H1TMANactual [continuing 3.] Are you against raising the standard of living for the poor, middle and upper class? 4. So I see you are not open to honest dialogue about an idea, you're only interested in ridicule, this shows someone who is closed minded and also bigoted on many levels to new ideas that are contrary to their own.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
"Replacing private voluntary medical arrangement with..." Ever heard of a False Dichotomy?
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
"Voluntary, Free Market arrangements..." interesting that he uses these words to muddy the water.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
"I believe..." this normally indicates an opinion
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@stonecast Plastic surgery doesn't really compare to medical conditions, since it is an elective and non-essential service. There are only limited price impacts by delaying its use, and if you don't see your doctor today for a checkup, it won't increase the cost of plastic surgery (contrast this with skin cancer). It's also an example of an immature market, with strong possibility for innovation and skill diffusion - we'd expect costs to fall as they have in Australia for laser eye surgery.
happyhappynuts 1 month ago
@stonecast, continued. For example, if you delay buying cheese or a television, you are likely to see only an inflationary impact (for normal cases), or even a deflationary impact (with high competition, technical innovation). If you delay going to the doctor for a minor ailment, this can then escalate to a more severe and more expensive condition. When poor people get serviced on deaths door in US hospitals, they still skip the charge in a lot of cases. You might as well give free doctors.
happyhappynuts 1 month ago
@stonecast There are indeed a variety of reasons dentists are expensive. Since the government is not involved, it can't be considered as a CONTRIBUTOR to the high prices. However, since Medicare in the 1970s, the real cost of going to the doctor has not risen in Australia, as the government mandated rebate has been pretty stable, and certainly stable compared to CPI/inflation of other services.
Externalities and prevention effects make health a more interesting case than cheese, TVs and radios
happyhappynuts 1 month ago
@stonecast
Healthcare is not like beans, wheat and cows. There are benefits to prevention, low cost visit to doctors before problems get bad. In Australia, we see this first hand with Dental - dental is not part of our NHS/Medicare system. The price to visit dentists is out of control, the fact public dentists are not available means private dentist charge around 4 - 6 times the rate charged by doctors. People on below average incomes let oral problems fester until major expenditure is needed
happyhappynuts 1 month ago
@happyhappynuts Healthcare is a service, the consumer chooses whichever company offers the lowest costs for its services, just like say any other type of insurance that also works well in a free market, eg home insurance. Consumers decide when they prefer to go to the doctor, get more checkups etc. Companies will offer whatever the consumers demand so they beat their competition. Surely there are many reasons why dentists are expensive in Australia, prove that it would be cheaper ...
stonecast 1 month ago
(continued) if it were public. I'll give you an American example, plastic surgery has no real govt intervention and prices have been going down for a long time, the sectors the govt gets in to have increasing prices.
stonecast 1 month ago
@stonecast The problem with your line of reason is obvious... a lot of services do not cause your death if you do not get them at a certain appointed time based on the idea of you getting denied the service or not being able to pay for it. To state that "healthcare is a service," is also leaving the caveat that you have a possibility of dying if denied it.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
Does this also include the healthcare for veterans. Now THAT is socialized medicine.
vparonto 1 month ago
OMG! Socialised medicine causes disaster! What rubbish.
search "life expectancy australia usa" You'll quickly see that countries with 'socialised medicine' dominate the top 15. USA and other countries without comprehensive government medical programs don't make the list.
happyhappynuts 1 month ago
@happyhappynuts Just because most rich countries have socialized medicine, and as a rich country has better health than poorer countries that don't have BIG socialized medicine is a really weak argument. Reality is that most countries in the world have more or less socialized medicine, so it's hard to contrast that with anything, in the US we don't have socislist medicine nor free market medicine, since the govt heavily intervenes in all areas. If it we really free market the US would have the
stonecast 1 month ago
(cont) best healthcare bar none. That being said, our healthcare isn't that bad despite the govt meddling. Even WHO's ranking places the US in 15th place (Overall Attainment) and this figure is scewed by WHO that values socialist factors more than general quality, e.g. health distribution.
stonecast 1 month ago
The mortality rate of people with health insurance is 100 percent.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
if you are sick or dying, there is no bargaining. the health care provider holds all the chips
cyborganic99 1 month ago
@cyborganic99 You bargain when deciding which insurance to purchase, with high or low premiums.
stonecast 1 month ago
@stonecast i have a feeling that insurance is kind of to blame for high health care costs. high costs mean high premiums all around and i feel that the insurance companies have been less than competitive so much as none would dare bargain with the health care providers for lower costs. its much easier to just fight their customers. but its just a theory. feel free to debate that
cyborganic99 1 month ago
The thing that people seem to forget when criticizing socialized medicine, is that under private health care, there is no "waiting" because if you don't have the money for treatment you just don't get treated, PERIOD. In that case, there's nothing to wait on. For profit, private health care "efficient" for those with money. Also, he fails to mention that many of those who are treated can often go deep into debt for medical care. How is that the model of efficiency? The solution is balance.
DearCongress 1 month ago
@DearCongress The balance you want is your medical consumption with my money. Pay your own damn way.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Say that to a five year old in need of on going medical care whose parent has just lost their job and their health care. The family goes bankrupt trying to pay and the public ends up paying anyway.
Health care is not unlike education: it has to be available to everyone if a nation wants its economy performing at optimum level. Tens of thousands die each year of treatable conditions simply because they do not have the ability to obtain health care. That costs everyone.
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 You build a case on false premises. Just give me a direct answer to these questions. Why does it require health insurance for a five year old in order for the economy to perform at optimum level? What treatable condition kills tens of thousands of Americans each year? Is every bum entitled to heart transplant? If so, whose? Should people with two eyes be required to give one to a blind man?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs 1. We seem to think that educating the 5 year old at pubic expense is worthwhile It is definitely good for the economy to have a supply of well educated young people. It seems to follow that enabling the 5 year old to survive to adulthood might also be a good investment. 2. It has been estimated that in the U.S. 75-100,000 people die annually from treatable conditions because they do not have access to healthcare. See: Measuring the Health of Nations, Health Affairs, Jan 8, 2008.
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk 1. i do not accept that public education is a worthwhile expenditure and suspect children may be educated better in a laissez-faire economy. 2. a number pulled out the collective asses of a socialist propaganda mechanism, kinda like one in three women are raped. remember that one?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Name one country that has a successful education system that is not publicly funded. Can you name an economically healthy state that does not have publicly funded schooling?
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 what kind of education systems do the economically unhealthy nation have? Can you name one civilized nation that does not have widespread drug use? Does that make the case it is a good thing?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Re 2. The figures I gave are taken from an update of an ongoing study of health data from many countries of "amenable mortalities", that is deaths of people under 75 years of age that are preventable by timely treatment. The US came in last. "According to the authors, if the U.S. had been able reduce amenable mortality to the average rate achieved by the three top-performing countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths annually by the end of the study period."
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Treatable conditions such as lupus erythematosus. Nikki White died of lupus at 32. She could not get healthcare. She died from lack of access to treatment. Other conditions, treatable cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. These can be expensive to treat. If you don't have healthcare, you don't get the expensive treatment. 3. Who is talking about giving everyone heart transplant or taking one of your eyes? That is just mindless fear-mongering.
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 Now I get it. You are from Canada and think the American poor do not have healthcare. They do. It is called Medi-Caid and its in every state. There are some uninsured and some who are not covered to pre-existing conditions and most simply are younger consumers who choose to spend their money elsewhere. What you condone is a right to take the rightful property of one man and give to the benefit of someone else. A rose by any other name smells as the same. So does theft.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs Are you opposed to laws that require you to buy car insurance? Every state requires you to buy car insurance if you drive a car. When someone else makes a claim for injuries or damage is that not giving your property to benefit someone else. What is wrong with that?
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 When someone wins a claim against you because you have injured them or damaged their property and you pay, it is justice. When you earn money, violate no one else's rights, and yet are forced to pay for a complete stranger's flu shot, it is something very different from justice.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs And you earned that money without relying on the public? You didn't use publicly paid roads or infrastructure, education, communications? You didn't rely on knowledge acquired from other people, including those who have lived in the past? You did it all by yourself?
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 Do think I don't pay tax? It is one thing to pay tax for common service, such as fire protection, law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, roads, bridges, etc. It is another to take the property of one man and give it to another.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 Yes, our taxes are stolen from us then used to pay for infrastructure, since we use those roads does that mean that the govt in turn can continue and take even more money from us for even more inefficient projects? Your other argument that people learn things from other people has nothing to do with the govt, so I don't get it...
stonecast 1 month ago
@stonecast Is there a better, more efficient way to build and pay for roads? re: education - Do you think business is going to pay for someone to get a highschool diploma or a university degree? If govt doesn't do it, it will be up to the individual. What child with poor parents is going to be educated under that kind of a system? re: health care: what child with poor parents without health insurance is going to get medical attention when needed?
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 not all the states require insurance for autos
cminksful 1 month ago
@cminksful Yeah. I forgot about New Hampshire: Live free or die; and if you are free (of insurance) and have a car accident that was your fault, your family enjoys the experience of being poor. Great choice. That's why the other 49 states have mandatory car insurance.
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 yea im not sure what your position is on gov health insurance i was just pointing out that not all states require it....i do think auto insurance should be a requirement because for the simple reason if you crash your car into someone and its your fault then you should be held liable but health care is not the same
cminksful 1 month ago
@amasonsk1 Yes, you should be allowed to decide what is the best use of your money, to save it on insurance every month but risk the fact that you may cause an accident and have nothing to fall back on or not. That's your call to decide what benefits you the most, maybe you drive very little a month so you'd rather save the insurance money, or are extremely careful all the time. Freedom is beautiful embrace it, get rid of the nanny state.
stonecast 1 month ago
@stonecast The risk that govt is concerned about is not that you may go bankrupt. Govt is concerned that injured people will not be compensated. The problem is that unless you have $ millions you may not be able to pay for the damage you cause, so a person you injured won't be fully compensated without insurance. Do you not think government should act in the public interest?
amasonsk1 1 month ago
@DearCongress so instead of waiting 6 months for a treatment they can use that time(or a tiny fraction of it) to work and earn the sum
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
@DearCongress Not having money on hand does not mean you do not get treated when needed. Secondly, private means quality at competitive price. Government intervention into the healthcare market is the reason prices are so high. Government inevitable harms everything it touches. Socialistic programs only survive in times when the economy is great. However, these programs create a dependency so they are not lifted when the economy goes in the tank.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@DearCongress Healthcare like every other industry should provide the best quality service/goods for the cheapest price. The free market does that with the price structure, and competition, that's why cellphones and lcd screens keep going down in price and up in quality. Now ofcourse those with no resources won't be able to enjoy certain services/goods including houses and healthcare, even if it is cheaper with the free market. What should we do in those cases? Well charity works, and
stonecast 1 month ago
(cont) most free market advocates agree, if the govt is to help in these extreme cases it is better to subsidize the consumer and not the industry, with vouchers for example, that way the free market mechanisms are still in place, e.g., competition.
stonecast 1 month ago
Many want free healthcare, forgetting that it is not really for free, someone always pays for it. However worse is as healthcare get socialized, the "free" healthcare people wish so much to have may not be given to them, because of the many waiting-lists. And like it is not really free it will end up costing more for less, but you won't see this because the money used to pay for all this will never be shown to you.
AlexDerossard 1 month ago
I would have liked to remind Mr MF that there is a fking basic difference between free markets and making tons of money and HEALTHCARE. It is about life and death! And we saw how your great free markets worked when we had to bail them ALL out. So I rest my case.
mainhoon1 2 months ago
@mainhoon1 In a free market, there are no government bailouts. That is the point. Bailouts are a result of crony capitalism, a total perversion of free market principles.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@mainhoon1
What's with this "We" shit, kemo sabe? Bail-outs, whether agreeable or not, were financed by bond buyers; you didn't lose, nor are on the hook for one thin dime.
Yet another unselfconsciously admitting ironic example of the culture of entitled collectivism.
BuddyPC 1 month ago
@mainhoon1 Free markets aren't good because they benefit only the supply side (companies) but because they also benefit the consumer with more options, better quality for less money, since the companies need to compete amoungst themselves for consumers. The housing market bubble was created by govt with non market low interest rates and govt entities assuring the market that they were secured by the tax payers. Banks played just into it and lost, they shouldn't have been bailed out though.
stonecast 1 month ago
free market my fuckin ass! what do u expect from a jew?
elegyrulz 2 months ago
It's not like there is some order being given to University professors that they must teach this type of economics or that. Not at all. It just happens to be that the Keynesian, New Keynesians, etc have huge popularity. Austrian economists and monetarists (as Dr Friedman was), are in the minority.
In fact one of my macro economics professors is a self-proclaimed New Keynesian but he holds Milton Friedman in very high esteem indeed and constantly reminds us of what Friedman thought.
nickdnc2003 2 months ago
@JohnyKimbled
Sorry this is just untrue. Im currently an MS in Economics graduate student and a huge believer in almost everything Friedman taught and one of his biggest admirers. He he is constant in all my references.
nickdnc2003 2 months ago
Abolish dems! They send their paid for by soros robots to post ignorance. just look below at the lies. Milton Friedman rules socialist Big-Brother dems suck!@
dbohnenkamper 2 months ago
Hmmmm, it's been awhile since he gave this speech. I wonder what insurance premiums were in 1978. I wonder what an economist thinks about the way privatized medicine works now with it's lawsuits, advertising costs, facility duplication, and frightened doctors ordering unnecessary tests to cover their butts against lawsuits.
I lived in Canada for 30 years and the socialized health care there was fantastic and cost less than half the same care as in the US.
eurorob 2 months ago
Hmmm Medicare Medicaid etc. I think maybe he was exactly right. You are claiming that the U.S. has a completely non-socialized system now; but that is not the case. the socialization of the system, mixed with frivolous lawsuits has wrecked our healthcare. however, it's still the best in the world. maybe expensive, but Good. The healthcare in Canada is horrible by comparison.
comichound 1 month ago
@JohnyKimbled I'm majoring bullshitting right now, or at least that's what it feels like. It's tough to write a paper that contradicts natural law, and put your name on it for an arbitrary piece of paper, but that's the world I live in.
TumisHumis 2 months ago
@nothernhit how are you supposed to get the best care when your a sick person in a low income bracket, who loses their job in the midst of a massive recession? No employee health insurance and no insurance company willing to provide an already sick person with coverage for the medicine they need or the doctors they have to see. Then when you do get care you're crippled with massive debt that'll plague you financially for the rest of your life. What kind of barbaric system is that?
ktown1389 2 months ago
@ktown1389 What kind of barbaric system in which every person (including the poor) indirectly pays for an expensive healthcare system that doesn't provide sufficient quality and level of necessity to which it is supposed to address. Why straightjacket the whole nation at the cost of a few? You have to understand that no one is left out even in a privatized healthcare system where hospitals are privately managed and funded.
dangerale 2 months ago
@ktown1389 Moreover, a competitive healthcare system will ease the cost of healthcare if everyone used it. It's the founding competitive nature of a capitalist free-market system keeps the prices low. My family isn't particularly rich either, but in the past my elders experienced appendicitis to the point at which their appendix actually burst. They got medical care straight away, and were able to afford the cost for the surgery under a predominantly privatized healthcare system of the time.
dangerale 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ktown1389 Healthcare like every other industry should provide the best quality service/goods for the cheapest price. The free market does that with the price structure, and competition, that's why cellphones and lcd screens keep going down in price and up in quality. Now ofcourse those with no resources won't be able to enjoy certain services/goods including houses and healthcare, even if it is cheaper with the free market. What should we do in those cases? Well charity works, and
stonecast 1 month ago
(cont) most free market advocates agree, if the govt is to help in these extreme cases it is better to subsidize the consumer and not the industry, with vouchers for example, that way the free market mechanisms are still in place, e.g., competition. The alternative is to have an inefficient govt bureaucracy run healthcare and fail at it. Keep in mind that we don't have free market healthcare, we have govt involved mainly to benefit big pharma without having to compete for consumers.
stonecast 1 month ago
@nothernhit i live in a country with socialised medicine as well and anyone who has life threatening complains gets care straight away
DorianDietrichBlog 2 months ago
id like to know what happens if you are on a low wage and cannot afford health insurance , and get cancer will you get the same treatment as someone who earns 200,000 a year and has top of the range healthcare ? and have the same chance at beating your cancer ? if the answer is no . how can you live with yourself agreeing with such a system , to not offer the sick their needed healthcare simply because they cannot afford it is equal to goverment sanctioned murder
DorianDietrichBlog 2 months ago
@DorianDietrichBlog There are documented cures for cancer but the governments of the world label them 'quack' treatments, outlaw their implementation, and strip the good doctors who use them of their licenses. Corporatism is at the heart of modern 'health care' and that's the real problem. If they can't make tons of money from something, they lobby to have it discredited and, eventually, outlawed.
Curing cancer is CHEAP but it's also illegal. Thanks, Big Brother!
RBNightlinger 2 months ago
@RBNightlinger trust me i believe you and its a depressing reality
DorianDietrichBlog 2 months ago
@DorianDietrichBlog Well if you believe the govt shouldn't determine which treatment is proper and should be used, that the patient/consumer should determine that, then you are partially agreeing that free markets are better than central planning. This is one of the benefits of free markets, consumers determine what to use or not to use, govt can get corrupted to outlaw competition (atleast to an extent) to benefit their friends in big pharma.
stonecast 1 month ago
@stonecast "Well if you believe the govt shouldn't determine which treatment is proper and should be used, that the patient/consumer should determine that, then you are partially agreeing that free markets are better than central planning."
The problem with your statement is obvious, governments DO NOT and have NEVER decided what treatments are proper or not, the medical industry and the peer-review process determine that. Great job in spewing propaganda.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
@stonecast "This is one of the benefits of free markets, consumers determine what to use or not to use..."
Except with health insurance companies the consumers are not determining whether or not they will get covered.
NewSocietyRBE 1 month ago
im so happy i dont live in the usa
DorianDietrichBlog 2 months ago
@DorianDietrichBlog we are quite happy you don't live here too. - a citizen of the USA
fzqlcs 2 months ago