It's all George W. Bush's fault! **politics thread**

[BayernWake]

At least I'm not a liberal.

Nor am I.

[Toon³]

Ummm... because I don't? They either don't make sense to me, I don't think they're correct, etc. That's a very vague question so I'm having a difficult time with it.

For example, one of the "liberal" view points in the US is anti-NAFTA and free trade in general. I think that's ignorant and ineffective. There is no "keeping jobs" in the US by having tariffs, etc. I'm more of a laissez faire person when it comes to economic policy. The whole "outsourcing is bad" thing. I don't agree. Allowing goods/services to be produced where that can be done most efficiently and cost-effectively ultimately results in lower costs for everyone, etc. "Protecting jobs" in the US by restricting such things is effectively a tax on everyone that uses them. It doesn't do anyone a favor and it's one of the reasons that our auto and steel industries in the US are in such horrid shape. They were protected for too long and incompetence flourished. Tariffs should only be used when it's a national security issue. There's a lot more to it than this but I don't feel like writing an economic essay, I think you get my point.

Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and tell me what you're getting at?

I'm just wondering why you don't agree with "liberal" polices. Surely you can't be against such things as free medicine and free healthcare?

[BayernWake]

I'm just wondering why you don't agree with "liberal" polices. Surely you can't be against such things as free medicine and free healthcare?

That's actually a tricky topic. It makes a lot more sense for Europe than it does for the States.

[Toon³]

That's actually a tricky topic. It makes a lot more sense for Europe than it does for the States.

Helping your fellow man shouldn't be a tricky topic

[tigerdave]

i'm just wondering why you don't agree with "liberal" polices. Surely you can't be against such things as free medicine and free healthcare?

tanstaafl.

[Toon³]

tanstaafl.

No but higher taxation and a national insurance scheme is a small price to pay to know that no matter where you are you can get the best medical treatment possible from the day you are born to the day you die.

[BayernWake]

Helping your fellow man shouldn't be a tricky topic

On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, I only want to be financially responsible for the health of myself and my loved ones.

tanstaafl.

(asks tigerdave to translate)

[tigerdave]

No but higher taxation and a national insurance scheme is a small price to pay to know that no matter where you are you can get the best medical treatment possible from the day you are born to the day you die.

The government can make do with less, or reapportion what they already have of my money (which is still my money). It's not their responsibility to play nanny for everyone. Not to mention that the best healthcare system is a FREE MARKET one in the United States of America. Otherwise you'd see those conjoined twins from Guatemala hopping a boat for Australia or Canada or the good ol' UK. :D

(asks tigerdave to translate)

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[JaredSS07]

No but higher taxation and a national insurance scheme is a small price to pay to know that no matter where you are you can get the best medical treatment possible from the day you are born to the day you die.

HAHA... Have you studied the quality of healthcare across different nations? Sure everyone has the same access to the same level of healthcare in countries with nationalized healthcare, but rarely is that treatment of the highest quality and timeliness. A few years back, I did some research into the matter and found there are only a couple countries where the system works really well, there isn't massive bureaucratic waste, and long wait lists. Nationalized healthcare in Canada, of all places, is atrocious.

In my opinion there is nothing tricky about helping your fellow man, but why does the government have to be involved?

[Toon³]

The government can make do with less, or reapportion what they already have of my money (which is still my money). It's not their responsibility to play nanny for everyone. Not to mention that the best healthcare system is a FREE MARKET one in the United States of America. Otherwise you'd see those conjoined twins from Guatemala hopping a boat for Australia or Canada or the good ol' UK. :D


How can the best healthcare system be the one that doesn't give everyone equal treatment and charges people extortionate amounts for drugs?

[tigerdave]

How can the best healthcare system be the one that doesn't give everyone equal treatment and charges people extortionate amounts for drugs?

Because competition sparks innovation, which leads to better products? That's basic capitalism my friend. Equal doesn't automatically mean better. Or more fair, even.

[JaredSS07]

GOP consultant Rich Galen puts out an email column a few times a week. It is also posted at www.mullings.com. He had a few interesting lines about the stimulus and budget that are thankfully beyond the typical political talking point battles and edge closer to legitimate political theory.

• More on the Budget. The Obama team is using the economic crisis exactly the same way the Bush team used 9/11: To expand the powers of the Executive Branch on the theory that the nation is in grave danger and exceptional times require exceptional actions.
• The Bush Boys gave us the Patriot Act. The Obama Minions are giving us a theory of government which will make the New Deal look like Ronald Reagan's second term.
• The Obama budget is not just about the money. It is about taking the control that the Obama Administration already has over banks, insurance companies, and auto manufacturing and using that as a starting point.
• As we fight through this very real economic crisis look for the Administration to control how many employees companies can lay off; which, if any, benefits they can cut; and ultimately what they can or cannot buy, produce or sell.
• The era of capitalism which has its roots in the mercantilism of 17th century Europe, later codified by Adam Smith in 1776 when he published "Wealth of Nations," is over.
• Capitalism had a pretty good ride for four hundred years, but we are entering a new era - yet to be defined or named - and you can either swim against the current, or hop on your surfboard and paddle like hell to catch the wave.

I think it is much to soon to claim the end of capitalism because I don't believe Obama is as maniacal or socialist as some people believe. I do agree with the first two points he makes.

[tigerdave]

I think it is much to soon to claim the end of capitalism because I don't believe Obama is as maniacal or socialist as some people believe. I do agree with the first two points he makes.

Maniac? No. Marxist? Absolutely.

[Toon³]

Because competition sparks innovation, which leads to better products? That's basic capitalism my friend. Equal doesn't automatically mean better. Or more fair, even.

You're a fool if you believe that competition is the only reason for innovation. Most of Europe has socialised medicine and yet research and medical equipment is the equal and in some areas more advanced.

If you prefer living in a country where you can have world leading medical care but only a certain percentage of the population can have access to it then enjoy it.

[Toon³]

Maniac? No. Marxist? Absolutely.

Do you know what a Marxist is?

[colinh9]

You needn't look farther than Cuba for an example of socialized medicine. Cuba has more doctors than the whole of Africa, and actually exports doctors to American countries. Cuba has a relatively low infant mortality rate (better than the US) and has a life expectancy rate that falls just 3 years short of the US. All of this in the face of the embargo we've placed on them in the last 50 years. There are problems with Cuban society, but health care is certainly a case study that shows the United States model to be just as foolish as many people paint it.

[tigerdave]

You're a fool if you believe that competition is the only reason for innovation. Most of Europe has socialised medicine and yet research and medical equipment is the equal and in some areas more advanced.

If you prefer living in a country where you can have world leading medical care but only a certain percentage of the population can have access to it then enjoy it.

Do you know what a Marxist is?

I didn't say competition was the ONLY reason for innovation, but it is a critical element. Quit putting words in my mouth. People work harder when they stand to gain over their competition. With a government-run (insert entity here) there is no competition, because the government will fund (and tax) it all the same no matter what happens. In fact, you lose money, you actually get taxed less than if you make it. Socialism rewards failure and punishes success. With less incentive for success, there's less incentive for risk, and less incentive to innovate. Doesn't mean that it won't happen as a rule, but you definitely see a diminishment in productivity in a creationary sense.

Anyone can have access to good healthcare if they work hard enough to afford it. Nothing wrong with that. To put it bluntly, I make about $26,000 a year, I don't even have insurance for my wife and son right now and I can still afford healthcare for them. It's not that hard to find decent, affordable healthcare in this country no matter what the socialistas would have you believe. Can I afford a plastic surgeon? No, but that goes right into my next point in that people think they're entitled to decide how they look. The sense of entitlement that people have nowadays is appalling, frankly.

It's not that hard to understand an idea that that the proletariat is funded by the bourgeoisie, as idiotic a philosophy as it is. Marxist philosophy criticizes capitalism as exploitation and ultimately hopes to make the working class overthrow the upper class and run the asylum for themselves. It breeds class warfare, socialism and ultimately communism. Unlike some people, I don't speak of things I don't understand.

Nevertheless, globalism and more widespread socialism is something that needs to come about to bring about "the end", so I'm okay with it in a roundabout kind of way. ;)

[BayernWake]

You're a fool if you believe that competition is the only reason for innovation. Most of Europe has socialised medicine and yet research and medical equipment is the equal and in some areas more advanced.

I didn't say competition was the ONLY reason for innovation, but it is a critical element. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Technically Toon³ said you're a fool "if" you believe that competition is the only reason for innovation, NOT "you're a fool. you believe that competition is the only reason for innovation." So actually, you're the one who put words in his mouth. :p

[City Dave]

Anyone can have access to good healthcare if they work hard enough to afford it. Nothing wrong with that. To put it bluntly, I make about $26,000 a year, I don't even have insurance for my wife and son right now and I can still afford healthcare for them. It's not that hard to find decent, affordable healthcare in this country no matter what the socialistas would have you believe. Can I afford a plastic surgeon? No, but that goes right into my next point in that people think they're entitled to decide how they look. The sense of entitlement that people have nowadays is appalling, frankly.


I'm guessing that your wife and child are healthy at the moment. It's easy to find quality healthcare if all you need are the occasional check-up and inoculations. Trust me, I've had a child with an illness, and if I wasn't lucky enough to work for one of the best hospital systems in the world at the time I'd probably be tens of thousands of dollars in debt right now.

Granted, I'm against totally socialized medicine, too, for a lot of the same reasons.

On the other hand, I also have a friend who is a stay at home dad because if he and his wife both worked they wouldn't be able to qualify for the government healthcare programs they need for their son's condition. You have to admit that it's a messed up system that promotes people not working because if they actually did work they would have less money. He'd be worse off if he had a job and they were making more money. These are the kinds of things that can happen with socialized medicine if it's done incorrectly.

I think it can work if it's done right. But after looking at things like the USPS, the BMV, etc. And, a very apt example, the VA health care system. It's terrible, and trust me, I know, I've gone through it. I don't even bother going to the doctor anymore because the VA is that terrible. And I've thought about getting medical insurance for myself even though I can get free healthcare through the VA. I doubt if our government is capable of running large organizations like this the proper way.

Also, I don't want the government dictating to me what treatments I can and can't have or do or don't need.

[JaredSS07]

You needn't look farther than Cuba for an example of socialized medicine. Cuba has more doctors than the whole of Africa, and actually exports doctors to American countries. Cuba has a relatively low infant mortality rate (better than the US) and has a life expectancy rate that falls just 3 years short of the US. All of this in the face of the embargo we've placed on them in the last 50 years. There are problems with Cuban society, but health care is certainly a case study that shows the United States model to be just as foolish as many people paint it.

Doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison since I doubt you can separate their healthcare system from their government/economic system. I would think that you need to look at countries with a similar government/economic system as the US to see whether or not a socialized system would work in the US.

I only have personal experience in Canada and their system is a bureaucratic mess, costs a fortune, and the actual care given to citizens is pathetic. However if you were to ask a random Canadian on the street they would sing the praises of their system because their government does a good job at hiding the sham that it really is.

Also no matter what countries you look at, it is much easier to run an efficient national healthcare system in smaller countries.