CNN has crossed the line into propaganda-machine

[HansNZ]

on the whole, i agree. I find it likely, however, that a system which financially rewards doctors as much as capitalism does would attract the most talented specialists. Thus, for high end procedures you would be better of there.

I thought there were large barriers to foreign doctors working in the USA?

 

[Norman Bates]

Matt, do you think there should be international law that partly regulates how nations should behave with each other?

 

[HansNZ]

Matt, do you think there should be international law that partly regulates how nations should behave with each other?

I think you meant to post this on the "god bless the brits" thread.

 

[Norman Bates]

Oops

 

[atlantabiolab]

This is a false argument consistently pedalled by Americans. What you CONSISTENTLY fail to hear, although it is told to you so often is that your private system is incredibly inefficient.

The US taxpayer spends more on healthcare than taxpayers in my country do. Yet we have free universal healthcare and you don't. In the US this tax money only covers a little over a third of healthcare costs - the rest is paid for by people taking out unbelievably expensive private medical insurance.

A friend of mine in Florida spends $3,000 a year on his medical insurance - for a healthy man in his early thirties! This is ridiculous when you compare it to the average full time wage in the USA of $32,273 a year. It escapes me how anyone can afford to get sick in that country. What's more 70% of full-time american workers earn less than $25,000 a year and the average family income is somewhere around the $50,000 mark. My friend is a high earner so maybe he has a super luxurious medical plan. But even so it does make you wonder what sort of healthcare a family of four can people afford at those prices.

State run systems are VASTLY more efficient than private systems that result in runaway costs. The USA spends more than US$5,000 on every man woman and child! This is absolutely absurd. You, my American friend, spend more of your taxes on healthcare than I do. And if you are like most Americans, on top of that you probably have to take out private insurance.

For ideological reasons and because of the power of medical lobbies you have a healthcare system that is a complete disaster. You are more than welcome to your "superior" medical system.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that in a socialized medical system, the government does NOT take from the citizens to pay for the healthcare of the population? It DOES print more money and hands it out to those in need?

Now beyond the sarcasm, you don't understand that the US does not have a completely capitalistic medical system, if it did, I believe that medical care would be enormously lower. The US does have government healthcare which coupled with insurance companies have driven the cost of healthcare through the ceiling. Hospitals, doctors and medical companies have come to the understanding that the access to "collective pools" of money, i.e. Medicare and insurance companies, allowes them to charge increasingly higher rates for services, since the "pooling" effect of these organizations can handle these charges. If the healthcare system had to charge every individual for the services, and not an insurance company or government institution, then the prices would be forced down or they would go out of business.

You are correct that the US has an atrocious healthcare system, but it is not for the reason of not having universal healthcare, which will place enormous burden on the taxpayers eventually (Western European countries are not re-populating their workforce fast enough to handle the growing elderly population who are demanding more healthcare benefits, social security, etc.). Taxing me to pay for grandma is not a power proposed by my Constitution, it is a burden I endure due to the influence of socialism on my fellow men.

Homelessness is rarely caused by anything as convenient as laziness. It is usually a symptom of something such as mental illness, drug addiction, etc.

Both behaviours, no definable illness. Please show me the recent studies locating the organic nature of drug "addiction", what part of the brain is not functioning properly to cause drug seeking. These are conscious choices, not organic diseases, not to mention drug-use does not equate to homelessness, since millions have or use drugs without effect on their life.

The relatively few that are true schizophrenics are a pitiful problem, but the only alternative is forced institutionalization. Besides they are being outnumbered by the growing young societal drop-out subculture, who embody the concept of laziness.

European style socialism, i.e. social democracy, makes no claims to solve these problems. What it says is that a capitalist system aggravates them. Socialism aims to provide people with an equal playing field from which they make of their own life what they will. There is no assumption that everyone will be equal.

No it uses subjective terms such as "equal playing field", "fairness", etc. It provides such equality through confiscation of the productivity of its populace, a very moral concept. With said loot, it then doles out monies to constituents who will maintain the status quo, since they will not bite the hand that feeds. And the constituency will always vote to remove money from everyone but themselves, thereby exacerbating class warfare. This is the joy of democracy.

The idea that socialism wants to force everyone to be equal by running down run down or penalising people who achieve is largely propaganda.

A progressive income tax defines this idea.

The USA isn't currently cutting aid programmes because it isn't living up to its international obligations. It is undercontributing aid relative to other developed countries. On top of that, the aid it does give goes predominantly to a handful of countries such as Israel for less than humanitarian purposes.

What obligation does the people of the US have to contribute to foreign countries? What right do these countries have to mine and my fellow's income? Humanitarianism? You mean enforced altruism.

I understand that the US has claim to economic interests with other countries, since this promotes and stimulates economic growth, but these are in our self interest, not moral obligations as you attempt to put it. I would like to see the US halt all military interventions in foreign countries and become more isolationist. The US was not supposed to be an empire, but a country.

 

[HansNZ]

Let me get this straight, you are saying that in a socialized medical system, the government does NOT take from the citizens to pay for the healthcare of the population? It DOES print more money and hands it out to those in need?

You have obviously misunderstood my post. I am saying that a public health system will provide universal healthcare by taking from citizens HALF the amount that a private system does. I am saying why pay double for the same product. I am not saying public medicine is "free" I am saying that is is cheaper. The idea that you pay either way is false. You pay MORE your way.

Now beyond the sarcasm, you don't understand that the US does not have a completely capitalistic medical system, if it did, I believe that medical care would be enormously lower.[/B]

Actually if you read my post I said exactly that. THAT WAS MY POINT! You ALREADY pay in taxes a sum of money that would cover most of the costs of a public system. Sadly, an ideological prejudice against "socialised" medicine, and the power of corporate lobbies over both your congress and public opinion through scaremongering advertising have created the world's most inefficient system. You now already pay in taxes most of what you'd have to pay for a "socialised" system. And on top of that you have to spend even more on private insurance.

And you can believe that a capitalistic system would make healthcare cheaper if you want. But this is basically a theoretical, ideological wish because the experience of every other developed country quite clearly shows the opposite.

The US does have government healthcare which coupled with insurance companies have driven the cost of healthcare through the ceiling. Hospitals, doctors and medical companies have come to the understanding that the access to "collective pools" of money, i.e. Medicare and insurance companies, allowes them to charge increasingly higher rates for services, since the "pooling" effect of these organizations can handle these charges.

If the healthcare system had to charge every individual for the services, and not an insurance company or government institution, then the prices would be forced down or they would go out of business. [/B]

Yes, but in a "socialised" system the hospital wouldn't charge these amounts because they are not money making institutions - medicine is a social service! The hospitals are paying for the operation so why would they overcharge themselves? This is the whole point of having a public healthcare system. Doctors don't get paid more for charging more. In fact they'd lose their jobs.

The administrators who control the public medical purse know exactly how much an operation costs. They will not give private hospitals contracts to perform operations if they overcharge.

The USA's inability to get its house in order is due to sabotage from the lobbyists for whom medicine is a profit making business. Hence they encourage more "consumption" of it. Quack anti-socialist ideological theories, usually peddled by those who benefit from them continue to predominate in the USA towards anything that appears vaguely like socialism.

You are correct that the US has an atrocious healthcare system, but it is not for the reason of not having universal healthcare, which will place enormous burden on the taxpayers eventually (Western European countries are not re-populating their workforce fast enough to handle the growing elderly population who are demanding more healthcare benefits, social security, etc.). Taxing me to pay for grandma is not a power proposed by my Constitution, it is a burden I endure due to the influence of socialism on my fellow men.[/B]

You're kidding right?

It is your American system which is most suffering from this burden because of it VASTLY higher costs per capita. The healthcare cost blowouts of Western Europe are minor in comparison. With an aging population the need to keep costs down is achieved so much better in a public tax funded system.

As for social security, the last time I looked it was the USA which had the big problem. The aging population issue applies to the USA as well. Do you think that the USA doesn't have an aging population?

Both behaviours, no definable illness. Please show me the recent studies locating the organic nature of drug "addiction", what part of the brain is not functioning properly to cause drug seeking. These are conscious choices, not organic diseases, not to mention drug-use does not equate to homelessness, since millions have or use drugs without effect on their life.

The relatively few that are true schizophrenics are a pitiful problem, but the only alternative is forced institutionalization. Besides they are being outnumbered by the growing young societal drop-out subculture, who embody the concept of laziness.[/B]

So mental illness is a product of laziness? If these people weren't lazy they wouldn't be mentally ill? Do you simplify everything like this?

No it uses subjective terms such as "equal playing field", "fairness", etc. It provides such equality through confiscation of the productivity of its populace, a very moral concept. With said loot, it then doles out monies to constituents who will maintain the status quo, since they will not bite the hand that feeds. And the constituency will always vote to remove money from everyone but themselves, thereby exacerbating class warfare. This is the joy of democracy.

A progressive income tax defines this idea.[/B]

You clearly know little about politics in other western countries. The idea that people vote for governments which promise more spending goes against what has happened in the last 20 years. This is nothing more than ideological propaganda that makes sense in theory but fails the test of fact.

Tax rates have consistently been cut. You seem to forget that most voters get their income from working and therefore pay tax. It is the middle class that pays most tax. And it is the middle class who determine who governs (although I recognise that it is big business which controls the government of the USA). When taxes have been raised it is because middle class taxpayers have chosen this. Corporations are paying less and less tax all the time. The general trend in the last 20 years has been towards lower taxes.

What obligation does the people of the US have to contribute to foreign countries? What right do these countries have to mine and my fellow's income? Humanitarianism? You mean enforced altruism.

I understand that the US has claim to economic interests with other countries, since this promotes and stimulates economic growth, but these are in our self interest, not moral obligations as you attempt to put it. I would like to see the US halt all military interventions in foreign countries and become more isolationist. The US was not supposed to be an empire, but a country. [/B]

Once again you did not read my post correctly. We weren't debating whether the US is "obligated" to give aid. I was responding to the idea that Bush is a big spender on aid. I clearly pointed out that the USA donates less than it has pledged to and that the USA's percentage of GDP given as aid is very low. This discussion had nothing to do with obligation.

As for the US halting its military activities in other countries. Typical of Americans these days, you seem to not be listening to what the rest of the world is saying. People wish that the USA would stop being a bully. Your foreign military adventures are for the USA's benefit. If you believe otherwise then you have been watching too many propagnada films like "Black Hawk Down". If others benefit from US activities then that is just a by-product of the US pursuing its own interests. The USA doesn't do anything out of altruism.


There are some other attitudes comng through from this post that need to be addressed. Firstly, go and visit the OECD website and see what tax rates are for income earners in the USA compared to other OECD countries. I can tell you this: here in New Zealand the government's tax revenues are lower than the USA's, yet we have a public healthcare system and a state pension for all people over 65. You will find that the USA is actually quite inefficient with its resources. Once you include the compulsory levies covering costs that are included in other countries taxes you will find that the USA is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world - with little to show for it - yet we continue to hear assertion of the superiority of the american way of doing things.

Secondly, your post makes assertions of a right-wing libertarian nature which you seem to think are fact rather than ideology. For instance the idea that tax is theft and that peoples' incomes are their private money is just an opinion. Unlike individual rights, economc activity is a COLLECTIVE endeavour. The whole idea of private wealth is just an ideological premise.

My sister may work the same hours in exactly the same job in a much poorer country. She will be paid less. In a richer country she will be paid more. This is the result of the collectivity of economic activity determining the value of her labour. If she lived on a deserted island she'd earn nothing. She needs the efforts and the capital of society to generate her "private" income.

People may borrow more money which forces up interest rates. She then has to pay more of her "private" income for her mortagage. Others may consume more oil, forcing up how much of her money she has to hand over to fill her car's petrol tank. Wealth is a collective good because tha activities of others determone how much of it we have. Society gives it and society decides how much she keeps. Taxation is merely society taking its share of socially generated resources for collective benefit.

The whole idea that the income generated by a collective endeavour is private money when this money is not privately or individually generated is simply a misnomer.