First first for me.

About the Army growing weed... how often do these really weird stories get reported truthfully? Not to get into a conspiracy theory mindset, but what's to say there isn't some sort of "recovery" program for vets involving the weed?

 

The military also grew tons of weed during WWII in places like Kentucky to produce all the rope needed for our troops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

 

hemp isn't the same as weed..

 

Sorry, I used it incorrectly because post prohibition part of the crack down on marijuana included the destruction of hemp crops.  Which in part lead to our rope shortage, thus the film to resurrect the hemp fields.

 

Rofl at the car video. Silly Europeans!

 

During the Obama health-care speech tonight Congressman Joe Wilson yelled out "you lie" when Obama noted that the coverage would not extended to illegal immigrants.

Funny that you would focus on this completely trivial incident. I watched some of the address, Obama explained most of what's wrong in your system using infant speech. If there are still Americans that can't see the mess you're in it's clearly not your government's fault ...

... but I'm used to regular facepalming over American politics ever since the War on Iraq (or to be exact, the charade before the invasion), so I don't expect too much.

 

Funny you mention that, because I actually was talking to a German foreign exchange student. He was curious to what the issue was when I explained it to him. He had private insurance back in Germany but he was still astonished that our country is having such a hard time to pass something that has become common sense in the rest of the western world. We even talked about Social Democracy for a bit which was cool. Nice to talk to a European that understands it...

 

Yea, was really wondering if it was worth responding again. But fortunately you already did. Slapnuts his political opinions are basically theology and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. It's kinda depressing tbh, I really like to convince somebody with arguments but Slapnuts seems immune to arguments. 

About Obama's speech, I liked the diagnosis, I didn't like the solution. Which we should be used to with Obama, who is probably one of the most gifted rhetoricians in the world, but it's all empty rhetoric as long as he doesn't propose serious plans.

Btw there's plenty of bad things to say about German politics aswell.

 

Slapnuts positions have very little to do with theology from everything I've seen.  You are just attributing that onto him because you disagree/don't like his arguments.  I've never seen Slapnuts say "Well God doesn't want universal health care!" ... Or anything even similar.  Theology really has nothing to do with it.

I don't think people in America are ready for Universal Healthcare.  It isn't going to be "free" it's going to cost a whole bunch in tax hikes and people are not willing to do that.  They are going to pay for their healthcare one way or another.  Either in taxes or in premiums and co-pays. 

I didn't really like his speech, it was a lot of empty fluff as far as I was concerned.

 

I didn't mean theology in the religious sense I ment his political positions are based on a fixed belief, which isn't based on reasonable argument. It's based on a simple government = bad, market = good equation. In the same way theologians simply assume god exists and are not gonna talk about whether that's really the case. 

Again I've pointed this out in lots and lots of posts. But according to the most recent poll 58% of the American people favour single payer(Kaizer Health Tracking july 2009). As far as the costs are concerned, America pays about double the costs of Australia which has universal healthcare. There's been good studies about the costs and you can look them up if you want. Or look up some of my previous posts in which I quote some of them.

 

That's not theology.  Theology is inherently religious.  Anyway.

I don't think Slapnuts even thinks government=bad.  I again think you are attributing to him characteristics that justify you to ignore his point of view. 

It's Sept. and the "most recent poll" on a single payer option is in July?  I find that hard to believe. 

I'm sure there has been wonderful studies about a single-payer option. I'm also sure that have been wonderful studeies about private healthcare and I'm sure both make an argument for their point of view.  That doesn't mean either is inherently right.  You've decided that the single-payer option made the strongest argument to you.  Not everyone agrees. 

 

I've discussed healthcare with Slapnuts in practically every blog post he made about the topic, every serious argument he and other ideologues here(some of which simply accuse me of being marxist or socialist) made has been proven wrong. So I think I'm quite justified in saying that Slapnuts his argument is based on a fixed belief(you seem to dislike the theology metaphor) rather then honest argument. 

I challenge you to find a poll that has a majority who doesn't want single-payer. The closest I could find was something like 49% vs 46% in a Time poll. And yes afaik that's the most recent poll but if you can find something more recent I'll stand corrected.

There have not only been wonderful studies about single-payer. It's the best system in practice, the only system that's based on private healthcare is the US system and I think we can agree that it's pretty awful. Your paying about twice the per capita costs the rest of the world does and having some of the worst outcomes. 

You don't have to believe me. Do your own research and you'll find that what I'm telling you is quite accurate.

 

"I think we can agree that it's pretty awful."  Obviously we can't.  That's the entire point of the healthcare debate.
What you are saying isn't "quite accurate".  America doesn't have "some of the worst outcomes".  We aren't paying twice the per capita costs of all the single-payer systems, either. 

"every serious argument he and other ideologues here(some of which simply accuse me of being marxist or socialist) made has been proofed wrong."  I seriously doubt you proved them wrong.  That's like arguing for abortion and proving all those people who are against it wrong.  It's a difficult issue with no simple answer.  You can't simply "prove someone wrong."  Your immaturity is showing.

"You don't have to believe me. Do your own research and you'll find that what I'm telling you is quite accurate. "  Trust me I have.  You seem to have a very closed view of the subject matter however.  You think you are right and everyone else is wrong.

"Slapnuts his political opinions are basically theology and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality"

I still fail to see how that is a metaphor of any kind.  You are clearly saying his political opinions are "basically" based on his religious beliefs, which you seem to think is not grounded in "reality".  You say his arguments are based on a "fixed belief" and he isn't willing to have "honest argument".  But you are? ...

Either way, I don't want to debate healthcare with you but saying his belief's are "basically theology" is simply wrong.  Go ahead and argue "oh it was a metaphor I didn't mean it literally" and all that. 

 

Your paying about twice the per capita costs the rest of the world does and having some of the worst outcomes.

Haha, yeah the outcomes for cancer are better than many western countries with socialized medicine.  The reason Americans pay so much is because 1/3rd of the population ALREADY HAS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, and the hospitals and doctors overbill to compensate for the governments ****ty reimbursement schedule.  Never mind the fact that EVERYONE's insurance is at least partially paid for by the government by tax benfits to businesses who give employees healthcare (the government pays for around 30%).

You don't have to believe me. Do your own research and you'll find that what I'm telling you is quite accurate.

There is plenty of socialist tripe out there that blames the "Free market" and other assorted bull**** for a medical system that is more than 1/3 socialist (after all, the old people go to the doctor more often.).   Costs skyrocketed as the government became more and more involved. 

Even when you look at the "free" market, it basically consists of insurance companies that are regulated to the point where they can't cross state lines to compete, which is ridiculous.

 

How do you explain that "FULL SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/MARXISM" system in Australia absolutely wipes the floor with the American system which does have market elements in it? 

I'm not a market enthusiast for a lot of reasons. But in with respect to health-care the case is even more obvious. When you have a private system, who's only responsibility is to it's shareholders, it will always fix prices in such a way that will earn them the most profit. Now that doesn't mean everyone is gonna be insured. If it will earn them more profit they are not gonna care about uninsured people. That's ethically reprehensible in my opinion.

Furthermore even from a efficiency point of view private healthcare is pretty terrible. There's lots of costs that are just bullcrap for healthcare purposes, marketing, CEO pays, contributions to congress members etc. Then there is administration costs which are just ridiculously high in the US. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Those are terrible figures.

 There's been a lot of talk about supposed death panels by the government. But what about private death panels. As it turns out in California 21% of every claim gets denied by private insurers. That's quite reprehensible aswell. People are dying because it doesn't conform to the profit motive of insurers. 

You can call all of this socialist or give it whatever 'bad' label you want. But I do care about these matters of human significance. Obviously you'd rather stick your head in the sand. 

 

How do you explain that "FULL SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/MARXISM" system in
Australia absolutely wipes the floor with the American system which
does have market elements in it?

AUTRALIA IS TEH BETTAHZ!  Great argument bro.   US healthcare doesn't have "market elements".  It's pretty simple, the government has been tinkering with it for years, and it's almost fully socialized.  It's simply worse than other socialized systems because our government fails at socialism.  The best solution would be that everyone actually pays for their own healthcare (WHAT A RADICAL IDEA) and nobody is robbed to pay for the health care of others.



I'm not a market enthusiast for a lot of reasons.

Good argument.

But in with respect
to health-care the case is even more obvious. When you have a private
system, who's only responsibility is to it's shareholders, it will
always fix prices in such a way that will earn them the most profit.

Which is why you have a government to prevent price fixing.  Of course, if the GOVERNMENT runs health care then you will have fixed prices, and you will have rationed care eventually because most governments can't run deficits into infinity (as western democracies are starting to find out).

Now that doesn't mean everyone is gonna be insured. If it will earn
them more profit they are not gonna care about uninsured people. That's
ethically reprehensible in my opinion.


So to you, it's ethically reprehnsible that some people might not have private health insurance, but taking money from one person by force (theft) and giving it to another for health care isn't ethically reprehensible?  That is a strage set of values that you have.


Furthermore even from a efficiency point of view private healthcare is
pretty terrible. There's lots of costs that are just bullcrap for
healthcare purposes, marketing, CEO pays, contributions to congress
members etc.

If congress was not involved in healthcare, there would be no reason to bribe congressmen.  Congressional "contributions" are a direct outcome of the government managing healthcare, so your argument on that point is void.

As for marketing, at one time it was illegal to advertise drugs on the air.  A good government would put an end to drug marketing to patients as it exists now.  Of course, our government is owned by the corporations.  This is the result of uneducated voters, and too many business outcomes being decided by congress rather than the free market.

Then there is administration costs which are just
ridiculously high in the US. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated
that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted
for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477
billion in 2003).

And why are administrative costs so high?  HIPPA and mandatory paperwork required by the government, along with people who have free health care walking into the doctor whenever they have the sniffles.   The things you blame on the free market are a natural outcome of bad regulations and socialism. 

Those are terrible figures.



Stop repeating the word "terrible", it makes you sound like a moron.

 There's been a lot of talk a
bout supposed death panels by the
government. But what about private death panels. As it turns out in
California 21% of every claim gets denied by private insurers. That's
quite reprehensible aswell.

Insurance companies should be able to deny claims that are fraudulent or don't fall under the scope of policies.  It's up to the government and the courts to make sure private insurers are behaving.  In your single payer system, if the government denies you a treatment, you have no appeal.  What are you going to do, fight the federal government in court?  Good luck.

Also, just because a claim is turned down it doesn't mean that someone dies.  First off, for a claim to be made, treatment is usually given already.  Secondly, just because someone doesn't have insurance it doesn't mean they don't get treatment.

People are dying because it doesn't conform
to the profit motive of insurers.

And what will happen when people die because they don't get treatment because it's unfeasable for the federal government?   Once again, this comes back to oversight.  A private insurer might not be perfect, but at least you can take them to court.  When the government decides that grandma can't get a new hip because she's 75, you won't be taking the US government to court, grandma will just have to suffer until she dies.  Who knows, maybe she'll take the euthanasia option earlier.  By then I'm sure they'll have a nicer name for it though...perhaps they'll call it a patriot nap?


You can call all of this socialist or give it whatever 'bad' label you
want. But I do care about these matters of human significance.
Obviously you'd rather stick your head in the sand.

Actually, I'm very well informed on the topic.  Claiming my head is in the sand is simply your mechanic for deregarding the uncomfortable facts I bring to you with each reply.  Hopefully at some point you will consider the idea that you might not be right about everything.

 

I think we have a two problems here, one of fact and one of a philosophical perspective. 

You just don't believe people have the right to healthcare. You believe the only right people have is based on their ability to produce wealth. If that's what you believe, then your policy advice is a good one. I happen to think people have more values then their ability to make profit. My mother for example wouldn't have had healthcare since she was more concerned with raising her children instead of producing profit, in your ideal world she would be forced to work. I don't agree with that perspective. 

You believe America's healthcare system is semi-socialism. Which might be true in some way. I doubt insurance companies care very much with their 3.2 trillion dollar profits. Anyhow if your gonna object to that, the same can be said of practically every major innovation of the past 50 years, the internet for example was created by the government. The same goes for computers, state-subsidized then handed over to the private sector so they can make profit out of it. And we can go on aviation, fiber optics, lasers etc. We wouldn't be sitting here talking over this awesome medium if it wasn't for what you call "socialism", which is socialism for the rich and tough love for the poor. 

The fact of the matter is that the system wouldn't run if it weren't for the highly dynamic state sector, which spends billions on risky projects which corporations can't undertake. There's no way the US would still be in the position it's now in, if it wasn't for the state sector. The car industry for example would have long been overtaken by Japanese competition(who used massive state intervention to protect their industry which allowed them to develop and create better cars), if it wasn't for Reagan protectionism. 

Also note that every single one of the countries that managed to develop since WO2(Japan, South-Korea, Singapore, Finland etc.) did so by huge state intervention. The US itself was probably the most protectionist country in the world before they were able to compete in the market. If you look at history that's what you see, once countries know they'll crush their competition they suddenly become free-market enthusiasts. The British empire was highly protectionist untill we(the Dutch) got pushed out of the game and they knew they didn't have real competition. They forced countries like India to open up their markets which totally destroyed India. In some sectors like railways and steel(in which India was supreme) they instituted major protectionism to save their own industry. Again this is standard practice for anyone familiar with economic history.

So you can be all theoretical about how the free-market is incredibly efficient and will make life better. Nobody in their right mind would believe such rhetoric when it comes down to it. Unless they can force it on someone else ofcourse, the free-market is fine for Latin-America, however the US and the EU need the nanny state to protect it's industry(and with cause unless they want to see lots of people lose their jobs).

Also all the fearmongering about how government is gonna produce 'patriot naps'(I'll admit that was pretty funny) is obviously bull****. I doubt you believe it yourself and if you do just ask a Canadian, a Australian, a German or just anyone in the rest of the Western world about how true that is. My grandmother gets perfectly fine care.

 

Anyhow if your gonna object to that, the same can be said of
practically every major innovation of the past 50 years, the internet
for example was created by the government.

The same goes for computers

As I've mentioned elsewhere, our military is pretty much the only sector of government that does anything well.  Yes they invented the first computers and the internet.  Of course there were a whole slew of PRIVATE SECTOR inventions that turned the computer from a targeting machine into an all purpose entertainment and productivity tool.  If you were at all intellectually honest (which you're not) you would admit this.  

I can only conclude you're arguing just to argue.

As for protectionism, you've got the whole thing backwards.  Countries that enact protectionist policies often thrive, eventually they become so successful they turn to free trade after which they become de-industrialized and less productive.  I have nothing against protectionist policies, I think modern countries should protect their workers and keep some of their production at home.

. I doubt you believe it yourself and if you do just ask a Canadian, a
Australian, a German or just anyone in the rest of the Western world
about how true that is.

Ignore reality all you want, socialism kills.  If you want to kill old people in your country that is fine, but don't advocate killing old people in mine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

 

How can I not admit the computer has been developed by the private sector aswell? I don't claim anything of the kind. What I'm saying is that risky investments(like right now with nano technology) are made by the government. Simply because markets don't provide the options, since the risks are too big. 

The same goes for things like public transport. The market allows me to choose between a Ford and a Toyota, it doesn't allow me to take the subway. That's a community decision, since private enterprise isn't going to provide it. 

You've got a weird idea of 'government' as some big evil entity. Actually it's just funding that goes trough the pentagon system and NASA, to corporations like Lockheed and Boeing. In the case of computers most of it was developed in MiT. Major new innovations usually get developed by the universities. 

As for "socialism kills". In my country it's your own personal choice whether you want to live or die. There are doctors who are going to determine if you're not depressed or anything, but in cases of extreme pain you can decide if you want to die. There is NEVER going to be doctors pulling the plugs without your consent. I very much doubt it happens in the UK(the article just proposed that it MIGHT be happening) either. But if it does that should be changed ofcourse. 

Also if your talking about intellectual honesty, what about this story(http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/9/we_need_a_better_change_in), a 17 year old girl who dies because her private insurer won't pay for a liver transplantation? Or what about the 21% of claims denied in California? I think those cases are serious, in fact they are more serious then your story even if it were true(and it's a big IF).  

 

I've never said government is bad, market = good.  Fact is I am not a fan of the government getting in to private markets, from the car industry, to banks, to health-care.  I don't think this is unreasonable.

 

This is what Michael Porter has to say, maybe you believe him?

Health coverage must be mandatory, like car insurance, with subsidies for those with low incomes. Otherwise, risk is not shared and healthy people can opt out and not pay their fair share into the system to cover their cost if they later become sick. In a system of mandatory insurance, people who cannot afford to pay the full cost of their coverage should contribute what they can, with subsidies to close the gap.

Health coverage must also be universal. This is necessary for an efficient and high value system, not just for reasons of fairness and compassion. The United States already has a form of de facto universal health coverage, because emergency care and hospital care are required to be provided to anyone who presents for care. However, this is the most expensive and the worst kind of universal coverage. People without health plans tend to present for care at later stages, making care less effective and more expensive. Such patients access care in unnecessarily expensive settings such as emergency rooms. The absence of primary and preventive care leads to worse outcomes and much higher costs. The lack of universal coverage also leads to cost-shifting and huge administrative costs, as health plans and other system participants try to shift the burden of uninsured and high risk patients to others.

In health care, higher quality is often less costly. The “good” or product is health, not treatment. Better health is inherently less expensive than poor health. This is different from buying a car, where leather seats or more horsepower are inherently more costly.

So, more than in perhaps any other sector, better quality inherently reduces costs. Getting the diagnosis right is more efficient than failed or unnecessary treatment. Fewer mistakes and complications cost less. Getting the right form of treatment to the right patients reduces the costs of failed or ineffective therapies. Faster recovery is less expensive than convalescence. Less disability means less long-term care. Less invasive treatments enable less expensive recovery. Prevention and disease management cost less than acute treatment and rehabilitation. Treatment earlier in the causal chain is less costly.

Much of U.S. health care is also well behind best practices in terms of value because of an absence of effective competition. Large variation in outcomes and efficiency are present and persist. In any business or service, there are opportunities for simultaneous improvement in quality and efficiency whenever the methods of producing a good or service fall behind known best practices. In health care, the opportunities to improve value are enormous.

You don't think skepticism towards gov't intervention is unreasonable? True, but in the case of health-care this stance is simply wrong.

 

But is health care something that should be a private industry?  The bottom line is that health insurance companies make more money by trying to screw people whose lives are on the line.  It's a huge conflict of interest.

 

But is health care something that should be a private industry?  The
bottom line is that health insurance companies make more money by
trying to screw people whose lives are on the line.  It's a huge
conflict of interest.

THATS
WHY
YOU
HAVE
GOVERNMENT
REGULATION

 

I don't think people in America are ready for Universal Healthcare.  It
isn't going to be "free" it's going to cost a whole bunch in tax hikes
and people are not willing to do that.  They are going to pay for their
healthcare one way or another.  Either in taxes or in premiums and
co-pays.

No, there's more than enough money in your system already.

 

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Do you even understand the enormous quagmire we are in with Medicare/Medicaid?  No we do not have "more than enough money in our system already".  It is unsustainable for us to pay for everyone in every doctor's visit they have.  I'll be goddamned if I have money stolen for someone else's surgeries.  If I feel like a good samaritan, I'll donate to a children's hospital.  THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM.  UNDERPRODUCERS ARE NOT CELEBRATED AND ENCOURAGED.  SUCCESS IS THE GOAL.

 

Yeah, clearly the joke is on me ...

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901025.html?sid=ST2008112902759&s_pos=
- http://www.overtreated.com/home.html
- http://www.hbs.edu/rhc/
- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

 

Slapnuts his political opinions are basically theology and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality

I don't blame Slapnuts for this, because this is true for many Americans. I guess the reason is how public debates are going on in the US: instead of focusing on issues, both sides merely throw words around (i.e. socialism, individualism, big and small government, freedom, ...) that don't help the cause but confuse the public. Also, you often get a better impression when following from outside.

Obama's solution is better than nothing considering how different some of the proposed reforms are and how many parties have a stake in this multi-trillion dollar business.

I don't know why you talk about German politics now, I never said my gov't is handling everything perfect, did I?

 

I didn't mention German politics?

I agree that the political debate in America has devolved into nothing but "catch phrases".  "Change!" "Hope!" "Socialist!" Etc.  But the media has to sensationalize and that's the easiest way, I guess. 

Plus American's are far to busy working three jobs to afford healthcare! They don't have time for all this "political nonsense", they are out WORKING! (That was sarcasm.  I mention it only because the internet is bad at relaying it.)

Even if Obama's solution is "better then nothing", why should we settle for something that's simply "better then nothing"?  So it could be "Worse then everything, except nothing."  I know that's not what I want to settle for!

 

I wanted to answer to cos-  :/

Even if Obama's solution is "better then nothing", why should we settle for something that's simply "better then nothing"?

You should do something before health-care explodes to 20% or even 30% of GDP. Your system, in its current form, is unsustainable. That would be my concern. If his solution is a first step to control costs then why oppose it?

Covering the uncovered and making sure insurance companies don't deny claims all the time are just nice extras and in your case entirely possible without increases in taxes or premiums.

 

Mainly because his option may end up being unsustainable as well.  But once people develop a dependency on something it's hard to break them off for something different.  Basically, if he wants to take steps that's one thing.  But it doesn't seem that way.

We should have seen social security reform by now...that is if American's were actually worried about unsustainable social entitlements.

It isn't possible to cover 46 million extra people without tax increases.  (Or whatever number they are giving now.)  And in that case, what about the other millions who would rather be covered by cheaper government healthcare then by their private insurer?  It *is* going to require people to pay more in taxes, one way or another. 

Sorry for hijacking your answer to Cos =)

 

It isn't possible to cover 46 million extra people without tax increases.

In your case it is.. just fight the waste inside the system.

 

In your case it is.. just fight the waste inside the system.

GERMAN ECONOMICS!

 

Nope, simple math.

 

 The waste in the system is the government, so we should remove the government from health care entirely.  I agree, this is simple math.

 

Nah, I'm not saying you did. But I always sense a bit of European superiority in comments made by Europeans when they look at American politics. There's something to say for that, but in my opinion it's not really helpful and quite hypocritical since it's not that much better in Europe.

When America declares they are gonna go out and invade some country, Europe usually just follows the orders from Washington. That's were our primary concern should lie, stopping our own crimes. We can debate American healthcare systems. But we shouldn't act like Americans have cultural defects which make them see things in black and white and how we sophisticated Europeans suffer from nothing of the kind. 

I don't know if you really meant to say that, but I did sense something like it in your comment.

 

When America declares they are gonna go out and invade some country, Europe usually just follows the orders from Washington.

Ok ... what?

But we shouldn't act like Americans have cultural defects which make
them see things in black and white and how we sophisticated Europeans
suffer from nothing of the kind.

I agree many Europeans tend to feel superior to Americans when it comes to politics and I find it annoying too. What I do think is that our political culture is somewhat less annoying, because it's less hysterical and less of a show.

 

socialism, individualism, big and small government, freedom

Well, words like freedom and individualism aren't important in Germany, and you guys have been socialist since Hitler came into power.  Perhaps we debate the ideas of freedom and individualism because we as a people still value them?

 that don't help the cause but confuse the public.

I seriously doubt the terms freedom and individualism confuse the public in America.  Maybe in Germany, but not here.

 

We have been "socialist" since Otto von Bismarck.

I don't expect you to see the light on this issue, because you don't have much of a clue when it comes to economics, but Americans will rather throw buzzwords around than wonder when a free market system works and when it doesn't.

 

We have been "socialist" since Otto von Bismarck.

Forgive me.  My point stands, it's not like Germany has a history of respect for individual rights or places any kind of cultural value on freedom.

I don't expect you to see the light on this issue, because you don't have much of a clue when it comes to economics,

I understand economics quite clearly.  Nice attempt at a troll however.

 

You don't get the point that costs of your expensive health-care system are inevitably socialized at some point and currently it's done in a very inefficient way.

.. and no you don't understand economics "quite clearly," but nevermind, I don't pretend to understand economics beyond a rather basic level even though I already had two economics classes during my studies and read quite alot about economic problems on my own.

 

 

Didn't I say "costs of your expensive health-care system" ? Yeah, probably I did.  Your system is inefficient even before gov't intervention.

 

When Hitler came to power he used the same terms, freedom, individualism and socialism. That doesn't mean A THING, we look at actions not rhetoric. So when Hitler declared his invasion of Poland, was "a defense against the wild terror of the Poles", we didn't take it seriously. Just like we shouldn't take the rhetoric about individualism and freedom serious, if there's nothing to back up the rhetoric.

Take someone like Newt Gingrich who when elected in 1994 promised to "get government off our backs" and bring back the happy days when the free market reigned. Well that's testable, if Gingrich really wanted to get "governments off our backs". While giving odes to the free-market, his suburban district was getting more federal subsidies then any other district in the country. So whatever Gingrich might say about the free-market, it's quite obvious he himself didn't take it too seriously, as he was the biggest welfare freak in congress. But the good kind of welfare, welfare for the rich. 

The point is, we shouldn't talk about rhetoric when we have no idea what lies behind it.

 

Wow, this is almost on par with an Iori type reply.

 

Canada is better

 

Shona TV Spot - "Survived" - kewego

 

I don't know what a "Iori type reply" is. But I do not quite understand how you can object to the conclusion(we should look at actions and avoid rhetoric). When I said you were sticking you're head in the sand, that was only rhetoric. It didn't prove my right or your wrong. For political purposes we shouldn't be concerned with empty words like that.