Austerity zombies just don't have a clue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think we are looking at compelling evidence that the alternative isn't possible, GGT. You seem to want everything for everybody and to hell with the costs, only by doing so you're mortgaging your children's and grandchildren's future.

I'm sorry, but it is that simple, and no, that doesn't mean relying on gender stereotypes.

---

No, you're wrong. I don't want (or expect) "everything" for everyone, damn the costs. When it comes to healthcare....we already know that some 5% are using over half of all costs, and that a majority of costs are spent in the last two years of life. That doesn't mean a 40 year old newly diagnosed diabetic should be prohibited from buying insulin, or not have access to nutrition education, or other medical interventions. He shouldn't have to go blind or lose a limb before realizing his church or charity isn't the same as good quality medical care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No, you're wrong. I don't want (or expect) "everything" for everyone, damn the costs. When it comes to healthcare....we already know that some 5% are using over half of all costs, and that a majority of costs are spent in the last two years of life. That doesn't mean a 40 year old newly diagnosed diabetic should be prohibited from buying insulin, or not have access to nutrition education, or other medical interventions. He shouldn't have to go blind or lose a limb before realizing his church or charity isn't the same as good quality medical care.

---

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg? And for much of this country's history, good quality medical care was provided by churches and charities.

Hell, in some places it still is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg?

---

All health care is SSSocialized, in case you hadn't noticed. Private employer-based insurance included.

For the less lucky guy who works a couple of part-time jobs, with no benefits, and may be able to buy a catastrophic policy but can't afford health care....it's unrealistic to think his church or a charity can tend to his comprehensive needs over time. It's even harder, longer, and more expensive for a juvenile type I diabetic.

You tell me, Enoch...how you'd deal with peoples' real lives during the hypothetical and utopian transition you propose. Seems to me that would mean lots of 40-60 year olds dying prematurely, and many kids dying before adulthood. Immunizations alone have extended longevity, and reduced childhood mortality. Thanks to teh evil gummint R & D and mandatory vaccinations.

How far back do you want to turn the clock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Oh, I forgot, there's probably a picture on the internet that says we are not trillions of dollars in debt or something. That's reassuring.

---

Wait, does that mean GGT wants everything for everyone??

As for false dilemmas, either you have completely privatized healthcare or govt death panels kill grandma.

I hope we get generic insulin soon though. It's kinda heart-wrenching to read some of the desperate posts online about people who've been laid off and are trying to scrounge up another week's worth of insulin :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Because those are the only options? Either he has socialized healthcare or he loses his leg? And for much of this country's history, good quality medical care was provided by churches and charities.

Hell, in some places it still is.

---

I must have replied while you did a quick edit...

Of course Shriner's is a great facility, especially for burn patients. So is St. Jude's and other non-profit hospitals that are often associated with Medical Colleges and Universities as teaching centers....that also get funding either directly or indirectly from federal and/or state dollars.

Like I said, all healthcare is ultimately SSSocialized to some degree. Just look at religious hospitals (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish) that pool monies from plate to parish....with county, state or federal assistance.

With that kind of money the shriners could take care of the entire US population's healthcare needs for 17 hours.

Charities are not SSSocialised.

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

---

It's really simple: place all chav kids in loving and responsible foster families. In a few years your spending on welfare will plummet. Or maybe build enough slack into your healthcare system so that it doesn't make as many costly mistakes due to accountant-driven planning. Killing grandparents is another option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Charities are not SSSocialised.

---

Of course they are, especially religious-based charities. They pool money and target neediest areas, as decided by their hierarchy. Plate to parish to people.

Quote:

---

You seem very happy very often to increase spending, when the reality is now a need to decrease it. Don't hear you propose how you'll fund it.

---

Now now, don't go putting words in my mouth. We need to be smarter with our gov't spending, not just slash spending across the board. We need to realize that certain spending is an investment in our future----like education, healthcare, job training, infrastructure. Until we can fix our fundamental and structural problems between government and private sectors, I've proposed funding the Transition by letting all Bush tax cuts expire, ending expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending corporate subsidies to big oil and big banks and big Ag.

We spent millions of dollars per day, just providing air conditioning to troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's an extraction of wealth with very little return.

Look, with almost a third of your healthcare expenditure being pure waste, and with huge unnecessary disparities in both quality and cost of care, it's entirely possible you can find your funding in your funding. After that you might even see gains from having a healthy and fearless populace served by good medicine. Or not, i dunno. They said the iPad was a crazy useless fad and it looks like they were right.

That's cute, funding within our funding. :D Also quite true, in a pathetic example of the US being such a strong and wealthy nation....whose institutions are constantly at odds with one another, and can't move forward. :(

Coming together as communities is considered Communism, instead of Communitarianism. Taxation is considered wealth re-distribution and SSSocialism, instead of Constitutional representation that keeps our Union running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

All health care is SSSocialized, in case you hadn't noticed. Private employer-based insurance included.

---

And it sure has done a bang-up job of controlling costs and providing care, hasn't it? To argue that the broken system is broken is a tautology. To argue that we need to continue breaking it to fix it is absurd.

Quote:

---

For the less lucky guy who works a couple of part-time jobs, with no benefits, and may be able to buy a catastrophic policy but can't afford health care....it's unrealistic to think his church or a charity can tend to his comprehensive needs over time. It's even harder, longer, and more expensive for a juvenile type I diabetic.

---

Yes? Of course he can't afford health care. That's an indictment of the current system, no? Again, you'll get no argument from me that what we're working with now is broken

Quote:

---

You tell me, Enoch...how you'd deal with peoples' real lives during the hypothetical and utopian transition you propose. Seems to me that would mean lots of 40-60 year olds dying prematurely, and many kids dying before adulthood. Immunizations alone have extended longevity, and reduced childhood mortality. Thanks to teh evil gummint R & D and mandatory vaccinations.

How far back do you want to turn the clock?

---

I reject your premise. You are conflating the increasing knowledge and research in the medical field with socialized medicine. Correlation does not equal causation. I don't believe that had government not stepped in and started disrupting the markets that medical progress and research and development would have flatlined. You seem to be arguing that without government people stop innovating. They lose their sense of wonder and joy at discovery. I couldn't disagree more. Now, you could make the argument that governmental funding can better enable scientific progress, and there may be truth to that, but the overwhelming percentage of governmental spending does not go to furthering research and development, they contribute to creating perverse (dis)incentives for insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare organizations.

I also reject the idea that people who have seen their tax burden decrease would not also turn around and fulfill needs with their extra income. Or that evil corporations wouldn't take the opportunity to make a public relations coup with the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Of course they are, especially religious-based charities. They pool money and target neediest areas, as decided by their hierarchy. Plate to parish to people.

---

That's not socialist. Socialism takes money by force, charities are given it voluntarily. Mammoth difference.

Quote:

---

Now now, don't go putting words in my mouth. We need to be smarter with our gov't spending, not just slash spending across the board. We need to realize that certain spending is an investment in our future----like education, healthcare, job training, infrastructure. Until we can fix our fundamental and structural problems between government and private sectors, I've proposed funding the Transition by letting all Bush tax cuts expire, ending expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending corporate subsidies to big oil and big banks and big Ag.

We spent millions of dollars per day, just providing air conditioning to troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's an extraction of wealth with very little return.

---

Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "an investment in our future" - they kept us safer and led to the Arab Spring. Bin Laden is dead, al'Qaeda is largely dismantled. I'm glad we responded to 9/11 in such a way that it hasn't happened since.

As for ending the expenditures there, too late that is already happening. How many US troops are in Iraq now? I thought it was zero? In Afghanistan we're already in transition to withdraw all troops soon and many already have been. So too late to do any changes there. I don't see how you hope to save a single cent here.

Corporate subsidies to big oil, banks and ag - how much revenue do you hope to raise from this and what consequences will those actions have?

Tax cuts - Again arguable as to whether this'll actually raise any money since increased tax rates can cause decreased activity and/or incentivise moving cash overseas. How much do you expect net to raise from this and what consequences will there be?

Quote:

---

They said the iPad was a crazy useless fad and it looks like they were right.

---

Source?

I got one in December and find it very useful for work. Also a hell of a lot easier to carry and keep charged than my Laptop, plus much more responsive (it takes no time to boot up since its always on). Seen it used in some very clever places and ways and its still early days.

AFAIK sales are growing and not shrinking so seems a really bizarre (and irrelevant) claim.

Quote:

---

led to the Arab Spring

---

citation needed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Source?

---

January issue of Irony Magazine.

The iPad was well-timed and is in many ways groundbreaking. Apple isn't just hugely successful because of its power to cut costs; it's also because it's a company driven by vision as much as by accountants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

citation needed

---

It's a claim and idea, impossible to prove. However when we were debating Iraq back in 2003 I was in favour of it, not just due to the human rights abuses in Iraq (reason enough) but also due to the idea a free Iraq with regulat elections etc would put pressure on other Arab nations to do the same thing. As has happened.

No successful bug business (besides accounting ones) are so due to accountants alone. Or without them either.

If you think that the arab spring was caused by people looking at Iraq and Afghanistan and going "wouldn't it be awesome if it was like that here" then I don't know what to say to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

And it sure has done a bang-up job of controlling costs and providing care, hasn't it? To argue that the broken system is broken is a tautology. To argue that we need to continue breaking it to fix it is absurd.

Yes? Of course he can't afford health care. That's an indictment of the current system, no? Again, you'll get no argument from me that what we're working with now is broken

I reject your premise. You are conflating the increasing knowledge and research in the medical field with socialized medicine. Correlation does not equal causation. I don't believe that had government not stepped in and started disrupting the markets that medical progress and research and development would have flatlined. You seem to be arguing that without government people stop innovating. They lose their sense of wonder and joy at discovery. I couldn't disagree more. Now, you could make the argument that governmental funding can better enable scientific progress, and there may be truth to that, but the overwhelming percentage of governmental spending does not go to furthering research and development, they contribute to creating perverse (dis)incentives for insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare organizations.

I also reject the idea that people who have seen their tax burden decrease would not also turn around and fulfill needs with their extra income. Or that evil corporations wouldn't take the opportunity to make a public relations coup with the general public.

---

1. I've never claimed our costs of care and providing care have had aligned goals, whether by gov't or the medical profession....and especially not by the Insurance industry.

2. R&D relies heavily on gov't funding, which comes from tax dollars---ie, "socialized" vs privatized. Even private universities and pharmaceutical companies rely on gov't grants. That doesn't mean people can't/won't innovate without gov't. :bored: However, governments do have a great capability of pooling and mobilizing tax dollars, in ways private corporations either can't or won't, to tackle huge projects. Small Pox and Polio vaccinations come to mind. Work on HIV/AIDs as a disease process, its diagnosis/meds/prevention. Also earlier things like the Manhattan Project, Hoover Dam, sending men to the moon (NASA), nuclear medicine, the genome project, etc. Would projects like high-speed rail, the Chunnel, or the Hadron Collider have been underwritten purely by private entities? I'm doubtful.

3. Now, if we could re-align social goals (particularly public education and health) with our social (tax) dollars.....some of those (dis)incentives might vanish, along with distorted private profits. In reality, all private innovation is now competing with global forces like China. And their gov't is quite happy to subsidize anything future-oriented, by throwing billions of dollars into it. "Can companies compete with nations?" :think:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's not socialist. Socialism takes money by force, charities are given it voluntarily. Mammoth difference.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "an investment in our future" - they kept us safer and led to the Arab Spring. Bin Laden is dead, al'Qaeda is largely dismantled. I'm glad we responded to 9/11 in such a way that it hasn't happened since.

As for ending the expenditures there, too late that is already happening. How many US troops are in Iraq now? I thought it was zero? In Afghanistan we're already in transition to withdraw all troops soon and many already have been. So too late to do any changes there. I don't see how you hope to save a single cent here.

Corporate subsidies to big oil, banks and ag - how much revenue do you hope to raise from this and what consequences will those actions have?

Tax cuts - Again arguable as to whether this'll actually raise any money since increased tax rates can cause decreased activity and/or incentivise moving cash overseas. How much do you expect net to raise from this and what consequences will there be?

---

There are too many big topics in there to address in one reply. Some religions use a different type of indoctrinating "force" for getting money, even if they call it voluntary tithing instead of buying salvation, but that's another thread entirely. If your definition of Socialism is "taking money by force", then any nation with legislated taxes fits that bill and We are all SSSocialists now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

There are too many big topics in there to address in one reply. Some religions use a different type of indoctrinating "force" for getting money, even if they call it voluntary tithing instead of buying salvation, but that's another thread entirely. If your definition of Socialism is "taking money by force", then any nation with legislated taxes fits that bill and We are all SSSocialists now.

---

Not all taxation is socialism. That's like the animals and dogs fallacy, all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

Anyway, I thought it was already accepted that all modern western economies are a hybrid mix of some parts capitalism, some parts socialism. The question is the balance that you seek. I see less of the socialism, more of the capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not all taxation is socialism. That's like the animals and dogs fallacy, all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

Anyway, I thought it was already accepted that all modern western economies are a hybrid mix of some parts capitalism, some parts socialism. The question is the balance that you seek. I see less of the socialism, more of the capitalism.

---

Depends on defintion... It's definitly a community coming together to agree to pool resources toward common ends. Maybe a definition of socialism is when the task or expenditure is valuing the aggregate and not the invididual benefit from a investment. Maybe all investments that are worthwhile to all investors (we can look at paying taxes as an investement) then that is capitalistic but any taxation in which the indivudal would prefer to opt out in both paying it and reaping the benefit of the taxation as socialist.

Your definitely socializing for common good, but you may be promoting common good because it also happens to be how best to spend to promote your own good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not all taxation is socialism. That's like the animals and dogs fallacy, all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

Anyway, I thought it was already accepted that all modern western economies are a hybrid mix of some parts capitalism, some parts socialism. The question is the balance that you seek. I see less of the socialism, more of the capitalism.

---

Taxation is often defined as legislated forced wealth-redistribution. Call that what you will. Or, as some of the extremists among us like to say....put a gun to our heads while picking our pockets of hard-earned money. :rolleyes:

US political discourse is ripe with this kind of bipolar rhetoric. No Tax High Spending Republicans, Tax and Borrow Democrats. Taxed Enough Already=Tea Party (but don't touch their SS or Medicare). Deficits don't matter, but Deficit spending will kill us. Military spending should be cut, but we should keep acting as the world's military. We can't afford the high costs of public education and healthcare, but we can't afford to slash our way to third world status. Etc.

Rand, you're a conservative in a country with national (sssocialized) healthcare. You and Thatcher have defended that as an acceptable level of balance. American conservatives wholeheartedly disagree. And the way our politicians love to frame the debate is by pitting US capitalism against European socialism.

:rolleyes:

If I was in the US I would not introduce the NHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If I was in the US I would not introduce the NHS.

---

Why not? Margaret Thatcher believed that to be a policy akin to public education, a forward-looking national investment.

You sure? Or did she think it was a "third rail"?

It is worth having some sort of health system, the NHS has massive failures though, but its incredibly difficult to make any changes to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You sure? Or did she think it was a "third rail"?

It is worth having some sort of health system, the NHS has massive failures though, but its incredibly difficult to make any changes to it.

---

You tell me---you'd know more about Thatcher ideology than I :p You've posted about the values of your NHS in ways American conservatives would call "European SSSocialism", with great disdain.

Sorry, I don't mean to keep this convo going too far from the OP that was about "Austerity Zombies".

You've taken a minor thing I've said and ran with it repeatedly. If I was able to, I would privatise much of the NHS.

No doubt with the same brilliant results Sweden has seen :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If I was in the US I would not introduce the NHS.

---

Yeah, I'd be more likely to, say, visit New York or Boston or something.

LOL! :D