Liberals...Hahahahahaha!

[Bodvar]

No need to lie, here.     

That's no lie, the British NHS is falling apart.

This is what happens when you put the government in charge of health care.

Under a universal health care system, health care is perceived as "free", so there is no discretion on the part of the public. Every time somebody has a minor cold or a scratch they go to the doctor. I mean why not it's free?

So what happens is demand rises exponentially and the government can't keep up the supply because government is piss poor at providing services compared to the private sector. As a result you get long waiting lists and even denial of services.

Now in Britain, private insurance is experiencing huge growth because the government is telling people that the system cannot take care of their health care anymore. But even if you decide to opt out of the NHS you still have to pay the taxes to support it. Sort of like in America when you decide to move you child to private school, you still have to pay the taxes to support the public schools.

It's a damn mess and we're going down the same road here in America, because the average voter has no clue how sh*t works.

[Nordic Superman]

That's no lie, the British NHS is falling apart.

This is what happens when you put the government in charge of health care.

Under a universal health care system, health care is perceived as "free", so there is no discretion on the part of the public. Every time somebody has a minor cold or a scratch they go to the doctor. I mean why not it's free?

So what happens is demand rises exponentially and the government can't keep up the supply because government is piss poor at providing services compared to the private sector. As a result you get long waiting lists and even denial of services.

Now in Britain, private insurance is experiencing huge growth because the government is telling people that the system cannot take care of their health care anymore. But even if you decide to opt out of the NHS you still have to pay the taxes to support it. Sort of like in America when you decide to move you child to private school, you still have to pay the taxes to support the public schools.

It's a damn mess and we're going down the same road here in America, because the average voter has no clue how sh*t works.

The comparisons between the government and private sector aren't entirely fair.

The majority of public services are stressed due to immigration. Today you will find ghettos of muslims, schools with full classes of pakistanis and the NHS trying to cope with an uncontrolled influx of diseased immigrants.

[Bodvar]

The comparisons between the government and private sector aren't entirely fair.

The majority of public services are stressed due to immigration. Today you will find ghettos of muslims, schools with full classes of pakistanis and the NHS trying to cope with an uncontrolled influx of diseased immigrants.

Yes it is fair. Governments, on average, run double the amount of overhead private companies do. Not only that but about 1/3 of all funds government collects is wasted, and these are modest estimates.

See it's all about incentives, private industries have to figure out how to be as efficient as possible or they go out of business. Government organizations don't have that problem, if they get into financial trouble they just demand more funds from the taxpayers.

The other problem with government organizations is that it's usually almost impossible to fire anyone. So if you have sh*tty employees your stuck with them. Compare this with GE under Jack Welch. Every year he took the bottom 10% of his employees and fired them. As a result he transformed GE into a super efficient corporate machine.

I understand the problems the NHS has, but an efficient organization takes problems like these and solves them. The NHS is buckling under the pressure; if it were a private organization it would go bankrupt and go away and some other organization that was up the task would take over. But since NHS is part of the government it's not going away and it's going down and it's going to take the public down with it by taxing them to oblivion while providing nothing in return.



 

[Straw Man]

The benefit of the US is that you can opt in to what you want.

For example, in Britain, I have private dental and health care. I still have to pay for the NHS a service that I do not require.

In America you are given the responsibility via reductions in tax, to chose to do with the extra free cash as you please, be it healthcare, pension, bonds etc.

Of course if you Americans can admit you're stupid and irresponsible than maybe 50%+ taxation and the government treating you like babies is a good idea?

Also, Sweden is a small country in comparison why do you assume it's government style is scalable on the size of the US?

I don't believe I made any statements about enacting this system in our country.  I merely looked at the tax rates (Federal and State) and stated that they (Sweden) seems to get a lot more social services for just a bit more in taxes.  Frankly, the problem with our system is that not only is it expensive but many people are simply excluded due to pre-existing conditions, rising costs, etc..  and quite frankly I think that is inhumane.   I don't know anything about your system and I don't know what NHS is but I would guess the reason you pay for it is because that's how an insurance system works.  It spreads the costs over an entire popluation.  I assume if you coulnd't afford insurance that you could fall back on NHS? (please correct me if I'm wrong - again I don't know your system).  That's alot better than simply being uninsured.   The costs of insurance in the US is out of control.  A family of 4 (2 adults and 2 kids) can easily pay 1000 to 1500 a month and still have their health claims rejected by their HMO.   Dental Insurance in the US is a joke.  It usually only covers a few thousand dollar a year in services and any major expenses are coming out of your own pocket.

Again, I know nothing about your system and really nothing about Sweden other than what I read in that article but I'm curious how many people are forced into bankruptcy every year in your country or Sweden due to a health emergency.   In the US this is the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy.

Education is another big issue.  At one time it was very cheap to go to a state school and financial aid was readily available.  Over time this has been eroded.   

It benefits the entire society (rich and poor alike) to have access to affordable education (note I didn't say free although I do think that would be great). 

[G o a t b o y]

i don't know about you, but i'm talking about a quality of life, much of which the Swedish government will gladly provide, if you're willing to pay taxes

Yeah, darkness and cold really add to quality of life. 


I suppose the bottom 2/3 of society might "do better" under a socialist regime, but those of us with higher intelligence and better education will almost always do better under a system like America's.  Pardon me if I don't want to "carry" two or three other people on my income. 

[War-Horse]

Hahah  joeloco never makes sense....

[Decker]

Yes it is fair. Governments, on average, run double the amount of overhead private companies do. Not only that but about 1/3 of all funds government collects is wasted, and these are modest estimates.

See it's all about incentives, private industries have to figure out how to be as efficient as possible or they go out of business. Government organizations don't have that problem, if they get into financial trouble they just demand more funds from the taxpayers.

The other problem with government organizations is that it's usually almost impossible to fire anyone. So if you have sh*tty employees your stuck with them. Compare this with GE under Jack Welch. Every year he took the bottom 10% of his employees and fired them. As a result he transformed GE into a super efficient corporate machine.

I understand the problems the NHS has, but an efficient organization takes problems like these and solves them. The NHS is buckling under the pressure; if it were a private organization it would go bankrupt and go away and some other organization that was up the task would take over. But since NHS is part of the government it's not going away and it's going down and it's going to take the public down with it by taxing them to oblivion while providing nothing in return.



 

That's just not true about 'overhead' or administrative costs as related to the government and private industry.  Just look at Social Security v. Private Life Insurance companies.  Administrative costs for the private companies runs from 11% upto 17% of assets.  The costs for Social Security are less 1% of assets.  And we get so much more from Social Security--Life, retirement, disability, medical protections.

Why?

B/c the profit motive drives up the cost for private companies: competition means higher salaries to attract talent, national advertising, sponsoring golf tournaments, sponsoring new football stadiums, paying exorbitant executive salaries, corporate jets, luxurious corporate headquarters and on and on.

Those costs are passed along to the consumer and are all part of overhead.

[Bodvar]

That's just not true about 'overhead' or administrative costs as related to the government and private industry.  Just look at Social Security v. Private Life Insurance companies.  Administrative costs for the private companies runs from 11% upto 17% of assets.  The costs for Social Security are less 1% of assets.  And we get so much more from Social Security--Life, retirement, disability, medical protections.

Why?

B/c the profit motive drives up the cost for private companies: competition means higher salaries to attract talent, national advertising, sponsoring golf tournaments, sponsoring new football stadiums, paying exorbitant executive salaries, corporate jets, luxurious corporate headquarters and on and on.

Those costs are passed along to the consumer and are all part of overhead.

Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.

You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?

The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.

Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.

Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.

[stormshadow]

Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.

You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?

The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.

Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.

Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.

Very refreshing to see such posts.  Keep it up.

[headhuntersix]

repubs are torn.

Their party is killing lots of people to steal oil.

How do you support that? 

Plus, ppl like Rush train them to believe if you don't support that, you're a Lib and youre going to hell.  Repubs choose the lesser of two evils.  And since they believe the bible, you know it messes with their minds.

Last time I checked we..America, is at war. We're not stealing anybodies oil. Oil is $88 so while we might protect it, we're not doing much else. Most people believ in the bible. U non-believers who laugh at "christians" ar the minority.

[Decker]

Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.

You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?

The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.

Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.

Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.

That's quite a temper you have there.

Total administrative costs are less than 1 percent of total program outlays and payment accuracy is over 99.5 percent for each of the last 5 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html

Social Security is fine.  It will not be bankrupt by 2042.  You are referring to the trust fund's exhaustion.  SS is a pay as you go system.  The trust holds excess tax dollars till they are distributed.  But since you insist, the actuaries at SSA predicted the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029...today it is 2042...tomorrow?  The actuaries use extremely conservative assumptions in calculating their predictions.  Actuaries can tinker with their formulae to keep SS in great shape for decades to come.

Unfettered capitalistic competition results in monopolies where quality is cut to shit, prices stay the same or go up and the consumer is left with few alternatives.  That means we need government to moderate our markets.

Sometimes we have instances where the product is not amenable to the free market--like healthcare.  Treating healthcare like a commodity is not only morally questionable, it results in failure when compared with UHC.

[Decker]

Very refreshing to see such posts.  Keep it up.

It's depressing to see another person on these boards not familiar with the basic facts of Social Security.

[Bodvar]

That's quite a temper you have there.

Total administrative costs are less than 1 percent of total program outlays and payment accuracy is over 99.5 percent for each of the last 5 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html

Social Security is fine.  It will not be bankrupt by 2042.  You are referring to the trust fund's exhaustion.  SS is a pay as you go system.  The trust holds excess tax dollars till they are distributed.  But since you insist, the actuaries at SSA predicted the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029...today it is 2042...tomorrow?  The actuaries use extremely conservative assumptions in calculating their predictions.  Actuaries can tinker with their formulae to keep SS in great shape for decades to come.

Unfettered capitalistic competition results in monopolies where quality is cut to shit, prices stay the same or go up and the consumer is left with few alternatives.  That means we need government to moderate our markets.

Sometimes we have instances where the product is not amenable to the free market--like healthcare.  Treating healthcare like a commodity is not only morally questionable, it results in failure when compared with UHC.

This site is old age and survivors insurance, that is purely a redistribution program, this does not include Medicaid and Medicare that actually provide services. The pay-out system may well have such a low overhead since they only cut checks. But I'm still highly skeptical. Anyway.

First of all just because I don't agree with your view on the Social Security system doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it, that's just plain condescending.

Ok, trust fund. What trust fund? There is no trust fund, politicians spend the trust fund as soon as the revenue comes in.

Social Security is going bankrupt, the very site posted confirmed that. When it was designed, people didn't live as long as they do now, and with the baby boomers retiring there aren't going to be enough providers to provide for the non providers. So you either have to increase payroll taxes or reduce benefits or both.

The fact Social Security is a pay as you go system shows how outdated it is. If people were allowed to invest or even deposit their payroll taxes into a bank account, then they could earn some interest, but no that would just make too much sense.

About the market thing, yes you need government to enforce the rules of a free market. Capitalism doesn't work unless people follow the rules, but the government regulating the markets? That's a terrible idea, government is slow, politicians take forever to make decisions. The market millions of corrections every day, nobody really controls it.

Government control of a nations market has been tried before, it was called the Soviet Union, it didn't work too well.

Treating healthcare like a commodity is not morally questionable. The free market comes up with brilliant solutions to problems if we just let it. Just look at the mini clinics that Wal-Mart and others were offering. Instead going through the hassle of going to the doctor when you have a minor problem, you can go to these small clinics without an appointment, be seen promptly, for an affordable price, and the pharmacy is right there! But of course NO the AMA had a problem with that because the mini clinics are motivated by "profit", what a crock! The market system can solve a lot of our problems if we just get our intrusive federal government out of the way.

[headhuntersix]

Great post..welcome to the board.

[headhuntersix]

Decker is a great guy..I don't agree with him on a friggen thing and would like to throttle his liberal ass on occasion, but he's a great guy.

[Tombo]

Yeah, darkness and cold really add to quality of life. 


I suppose the bottom 2/3 of society might "do better" under a socialist regime, but those of us with higher intelligence and better education will almost always do better under a system like America's.  Pardon me if I don't want to "carry" two or three other people on my income. 

I'm going to go out on a leg here and say you already do 'carry' a handful of lowlife scumbags who leech the system for all they can.

And if you would trade all that for nicer weather, so be it, i have nothing against you

[Bodvar]

Great post..welcome to the board.

Thanks

[Decker]

...First of all just because I don't agree with your view on the Social Security system doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it, that's just plain condescending.

I'm sorry about that.

Ok, trust fund. What trust fund? There is no trust fund, politicians spend the trust fund as soon as the revenue comes in.

The trust fund is very real.  It contains treasury notes.  They must be repaid under law.  If that is a hoax, then Greenspan and Reagan (if he were alive) would be charged with defrauding the gov.  Back in the mid 80's Greenspan advised Reagan to raise the payroll tax to fund the babyboomer retirements down the road.  If the trust fund was an accounting trick then that's a problem.  But seriously, this is why Gore introduced the 'lockbox' idea so that payroll tax revenue would not be used as general tax revenue.

Social Security is going bankrupt, the very site posted confirmed that. When it was designed, people didn't live as long as they do now, and with the baby boomers retiring there aren't going to be enough providers to provide for the non providers. So you either have to increase payroll taxes or reduce benefits or both.

Post the web page where SSA says that it's going bankrupt.  What happened is that Bush and his privatizers infested SSA and put in veiled warnings to make privatization a 'sound' option for the pending 'crisis'.

The fact Social Security is a pay as you go system shows how outdated it is. If people were allowed to invest or even deposit their payroll taxes into a bank account, then they could earn some interest, but no that would just make too much sense.

No.  Social insurance means spreading the risk over the entire population.  What risk?  Abject poverty in one's golden years.  Privatization is just another name for an IRA.  There's no shared risk there.

About the market thing, yes you need government to enforce the rules of a free market. Capitalism doesn't work unless people follow the rules, but the government regulating the markets? That's a terrible idea, government is slow, politicians take forever to make decisions. The market millions of corrections every day, nobody really controls it.

Yes, the market has self-correcting features.  I think we are in agreement on this.  The market is moderated to the extent that the government effectuates fairness in bargaining--anti-trust laws and whatnot.  When the Savings and Loan industry was deregulated it slid into corruption resulting in a 1/2 trillion tab picked up by the taxpayers.  When Congress deregulated the Cable TV industry in '84 monopolies arose and service went in the crapper.  We need government acting as the referee to these market games.

Treating healthcare like a commodity is not morally questionable. The free market comes up with brilliant solutions to problems if we just let it. Just look at the mini clinics that Wal-Mart and others were offering. Instead going through the hassle of going to the doctor when you have a minor problem, you can go to these small clinics without an appointment, be seen promptly, for an affordable price, and the pharmacy is right there! But of course NO the AMA had a problem with that because the mini clinics are motivated by "profit", what a crock! The market system can solve a lot of our problems if we just get our intrusive federal government out of the way.

If our free market solutions to healthcare are so innovative and wonderful, why are 40+ million people uninsured?  Why are businesses scrapping their company coverage or offering benefits that are simply unaffordable.  Why is the US ranked behind Britain and Canada and almost any other UHC country in terms of cost and efficacy?

B/c the free market is failing to provide adequate healthcare, that's why.

Isn't the AMA against UHC as well?

[Decker]

Decker is a great guy..I don't agree with him on a friggen thing and would like to throttle his liberal ass on occasion, but he's a great guy.

Oh yeah, let's see how big you talk when Green Bay trounces your....forget it. 

Same here HH.

[stormshadow]

Decker,

The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK.  They violate mans basic motive to produce.

Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.

Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.

What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)

The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations.  Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty. 

Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.  PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.

It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.

[OzmO]

Oh yeah, let's see how big you talk when Green Bay trounces your....forget it. 

Same here HH.

Sorry about GB Deck.  My Father's side of the Family is all from Wisconsin, and they are on anti-depression meds now.   

[War-Horse]

Decker,

The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK.  They violate mans basic motive to produce.

"[A man will do anything for food clothing and shelter...peace of mind. If he has the oppurtunity to steal from you for profit, he will.    (see bush administration)"]

Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.

[Again its only because he has the oppurtunity]

Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.

[Now the above is hilarious!!  See (Bush Administration and oil profits)]

What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)

[Its not theft...Its caring for youre fellowman.....is that so hard?]

The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations.  Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty. 

Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.  PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.

[Private charity will never work as you stated above man is moved by greed...]

It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.

[stormshadow]

Warhorse,

I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise.  You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"

The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.

Do you not see the flaw with this?

Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?

That was the point in the Revolution...  Life, Liberty, and Property

I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?

And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.

How much have you donated to charity this year? 

Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY.  Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...

I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know.  What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy.  If they support it, then they use their own money.

[Nordic Superman]

haha that's an awesome post stormshadow

[War-Horse]

Warhorse,

I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise.  You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"

The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.

Do you not see the flaw with this?

Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?

That was the point in the Revolution...  Life, Liberty, and Property

I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?

And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.

How much have you donated to charity this year? 

Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY.  Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...

I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know.  What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy.  If they support it, then they use their own money.

Hold youre money tight storm.......Youre faith in the current system will fail you soon.
Socialism has been proven not to work already.   Dictatorships do not work.  Democracy will fail as a young concept,also.

Dont assume Im poor, my friend...Im not.