- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,408
- Reaction score
- 67,621
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That's conservative economic theory - and it sounds really reasonable to you, doesn't it? It sounds really, really sensible, doesn't it?
Now, if that's how it really worked out in the REAL world, then shouldn't it be reflected in the economies of the world, all over the world? Yes, it should...but it doesn't.
Look at ALL the first-world democracies on the planet - every single one. What do they ALL share in common? "Big Government", high effective taxes, and strong regulation. EVERY first-world democracy has ALL of those traits. (and FYI, some try to argue "Singapore" as an instance of low taxes, but their taxes are even higher when the "mandatory savings account" is taken into account - it's a tax in all but name)
On the other hand, are there democracies that have the conservative trifecta of small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation? Absolutely...and they're ALL third-world nations.
So this begs the question: WHY is it that ALL first-world democracies have the kind of economic policies that conservatives claim are a sure-fire recipe for economic doom, whereas when it comes to democracies that have the kind of economic policies that conservatives do support, ALL of them are third-world nations? WHY is that?
Why is it that in every single instance, the actual RESULTS of conservative economic theory are precisely the opposite of what conservative dogma requires? WHY is that?
Yet, despite its "third world" policies, you choose to live here. WHY is that?
but but but but but .... Einstein was born to a poor, single mother!!
but but but but but .... Einstein was born to a poor, single mother!!
So was Jesus, come to think of it.
Yeah, well - not really if you think about it...
Just say no.At some point the nonsense that private organizations can do things better and more cheaply than government...has got to be put to bed.
It simply is not true.
As for healthcare...Medicare, Medicaid, and yes, even the Veteran's hospitals are as efficient or more efficient...and less costly that private organizations.
Get over that stuff.
Just say no.
Those government programs fail, and the worst one to fail is the Vets, as they've put their asses on the line for us.
Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.
If government produced computers or cell phones, we would still have bricks with batteries the size of handbags. They'd cost 10,000 a piece. The Commodore 64 would still be state of the art.
It's astounding someone can sit in a semi-free country, enjoy all the luxuries brought by private enterprise at low cost, and then look at bureaucratic, unhelpful, costly government and draw your conclusion. And these failures of socialism are not American... they are everywhere the HIV of socialism has been introduced.
?????
I am a vet. I was treated for cancer at the VA hospital in East Orange NJ back in 1996. I had no private insurance. They saved my life...with Chemo and radiation.
I've been treated for other medical problems by them also.
Yeah...there are problems with the Vet hospitals and doctors...BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS with private hospitals and doctors also.
I think the Vet medical system is not a failure at all...even though there are problems that have to be ironed out.
So was Jesus, come to think of it.
Wealth distribution is often frowned upon in America. I see no reason for this as it is for the greater good. "What enriches the part enriches the whole"(Karl Marx). I am for wealth distribution, most advanced countries have a form of it. Why are so many Americans against it and what do they perceive wrong with it?
If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.
:lamo
Thanks, i needed that!
I didn't know you were a vet.
You still don't get it. Don't worry, it will come. :mrgreen:
Just say no.
Those government programs fail, and the worst one to fail is the Vets, as they've put their asses on the line for us.
Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.
If government produced computers or cell phones, we would still have bricks with batteries the size of handbags. They'd cost 10,000 a piece. The Commodore 64 would still be state of the art.
Don't think so. Did you ever see government run car companies and what they produced? Lada (old fiats). Trabants... paper bodies. Skoda's. Yugo's.
The same models (badly) produced for years.
It's astounding someone can sit in a semi-free country, enjoy all the luxuries brought by private enterprise at low cost, and then look at bureaucratic, unhelpful, costly government and draw your conclusion. And these failures of socialism are not American... they are everywhere the HIV of socialism has been introduced.
Everywhere... without exception.
Nobody says the VA hospitals don't provide good health care. The point is that it is inefficient and expensive health care. If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.
There are problems with every organization in the country but none of them are as bad or inefficient or expensive as what the government does.
The solution is simple as I mentioned above. Shut it down and sign the vets up for medicare.
Speaking from the philosophical, America was founded on the notion that the more freedom an individual has the more righteous the government is. To that end, we acknowledged individual rights and limited government's ability to intrude on those rights. We have two types of rights, enumerated and assumed. Enumerated rights are those established in the Constitution. Assumed are rights that exist but have not been listed. Many assumed rights have been enumerated in court rulings, but are not specifically listed in any one document. On assumed right is that the fruit of one's labor is their property. Granted, it is widely accepted and understood that some money is required to maintain the government's viability. Beyond the fiscal health of the government, however, our congress does not have an explicit power to redistribute wealth.
Speaking from the practical, wealth distribution creates anomalies in the market. These anomalies slow or prevent economic growth. For example, 36-52% of taxes collected for wealth redistribution are lost to Okun's bucket. That is, inefficiencies and costs are absorbed into the government.
The unregulated private sector is to blame for inflated costs across the board.
We could already give every American free healthcare if our system was simply of average efficiency among 33 other OECD countries with only the money we spend via government. We spend 17% of GDP on healthcare but the OECD average is 8.9%.
What unregulated private sector are you talking about. Sounds like you are still waiting for 1984.
I heard you before. Government spending as a % of GDP is meaningless to me. I judge the government by what it does, not by its financial ratios.
No.
Read this -
History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
The industry is effectively stealing money from its consumers.
In many facets of healthcare, competition actually brings prices up. Why? Because they have to spend more money on IP lawyers and litigation and they're just so generous that they pass those costs onto the consumer with a hefty markup.
Name me one area government is better, more efficient, gets better results than the private sector.
Beyond the fiscal health of the government, however, our congress does not have an explicit power to redistribute wealth.
Nobody says the VA hospitals don't provide good health care. The point is that it is inefficient and expensive health care. If we were to get the government out of the health care business, we could provide vets with medicare and save a fortune.
There are problems with every organization in the country but none of them are as bad or inefficient or expensive as what the government does.
The solution is simple as I mentioned above. Shut it down and sign the vets up for medicare.
Alright, Frank, we're now in the proper forum so I can ask you the question you avoided in the other forum:
What percentage of people's earnings do you want redistributed and given to the poor?
It is not inefficient...and to the best of my knowledge, it is less expensive to operate a VA hospital than a for-profit hospital.
I'm still undecided about the ramifications of changing to Medicare for vets...but it might be a reasonable idea.
Absolute blather.
Lots of things to consider. Not nearly as simply a solution to the problem as you are suggesting it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?