I loathe the 16th amendment.

But economic growth isn't a zero-sum game. The first world doesn't grow at the expense of no-growth for the 2nd and 3rd world. They're actually tied together, and positive economic growth enables growth for others.

Stopping economic growth equates to stagnation, hence the Luddite comment. Its our economic growth that's getting us towards more greener technologies. We wouldn't be anywhere close if we had stopped growth after industrialization.
 
I don't think that the Luddite comment is valid because that position is one of environmental concern not job prospect concern.



EDIT: If increased economic growth will reduce our impact on the environment then our 1st world ecological footprint must be decreasing.

EDIT: However the ecological footprint (per capita how many earths would be required to support you) is increasing for the USA, UK, France, Italy, etc with the only major exception being Germany which looks to be rising again after a drop.

This would IMO seem to indicate that despite the increasing economic growth, the alleged environmental benefits have not occurred to date. Even if they do occur they would have to be rather large to drop the ecological footprint back to 1.0.
 
Badplayer I understand your point and maybe it's a discussion for another thread. I believe we're experincing as Patricia Aburdene suggests a megatrend of "conscious capitalism".

Environmental concern is gaining considerable momentum but needs capital and commercial viability. Unfortunately, it may not be happening as quickly as the "green" folks want. This much is true. If it's going to happen it will start in the first and second world because of capital and commercial viability.

Here are some recent examples of how it's developing and being monetized.
Since October the Global Alternative energy index is up 23%.
http://ardourglobalindexes.com/
The industries include Alternative energy resources(wind, geothermal etc) distributed generation (Micro turbines, fuel cells), energy efficiency (lighting, co-generation), enabling technologies (flywheels, power electronics) and environmental technologies (water treatment, clean coal)

Companies like American Electric Power monetizing their CO2 emissions through the climate exchange.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/


Why is this becoming more prevalent?
Geopolitical hotspots
Natural disasters
Global environment
Global energy demand
 
An efficient government service is hardly a contradiction. Just look at how much the US spends on healthcare compared to Canada or the UK. And yet we (Canadians at least) get a better level of service.

And I can choose any school, any hospital, and any procedure (within reason).


Really now, you're going to tell us all that your government run health care is superior to the endless array of private health services available to me when I pay for them from my own pocket? Not so. I can buy any procedure anywhere with no restrictions of any kind. You can't, you can only get approved procedures, and try to tell us there's no waiting lists for anything.

The Canadian (or UK) version of government healthcare is indeed far superior to the US version of government healthcare, but none come close to the levels available from private care paid for by the patient from their own funds. Using another government for your comparison isn't the public/private issue that we were discussing.

The same goes for schools. I went to a private college on a private academic scholarship. My school was in no way associated with the government. If you relied on a government education, then you weren't allowed in, it's that simple. Canada has zero private colleges? If they even have one, then your statement "I can choose any school" is false.



As for the postal service issue, it may work in places like Japan, with a fairly high population density all over the country. Here it would not work.


Then would you care to tell us why UPS and FedEx every year keep eroding the Post Office's share of the shipping business? I'll give you a hint - the private services are more efficient.

And if the public sector is more efficient, then it should still be more efficient in Japan's situation too, right?



And there are some things, like infrastructure, that simply wouldn't get done without the evil evil government.


Agreed, but infrastructure works best as a monopoly without competition. Healthcare and education are very different services.



I'm absolutely amazed that you are even trying to convince anyone that a government bureaucracy is more efficient than the private sector. While you're getting your state education, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you enroll in some economics courses?
 
Really now, you're going to tell us all that your government run health care is superior to the endless array of private health services available to me when I pay for them from my own pocket? Not so. I can buy any procedure anywhere with no restrictions of any kind. You can't, you can only get approved procedures, and try to tell us there's no waiting lists for anything.

The Canadian (or UK) version of government healthcare is indeed far superior to the US version of government healthcare, but none come close to the levels available from private care paid for by the patient from their own funds. Using another government for your comparison isn't the public/private issue that we were discussing.

That's completely false. Private health care charge more for the same services and the same waiting lists, and I know this because I've experienced both systems.

The same goes for schools. I went to a private college on a private academic scholarship. My school was in no way associated with the government. If you relied on a government education, then you weren't allowed in, it's that simple. Canada has zero private colleges? If they even have one, then your statement "I can choose any school" is false.

:confused: I don't think any single country has a private-only or public-only school system, including colleges.






I'm absolutely amazed that you are even trying to convince anyone that a government bureaucracy is more efficient than the private sector. While you're getting your state education, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you enroll in some economics courses?

:lol: maybe you should open your eyes. Just look at the energy sector, and ask Californians how efficient their energy companies are now that they're private.
 
Utterly false part in bold. No...its not free. You pay a crapload for it, you just think its free because you dont see the money changing hands.:lol:
It is actually free. Even people who don't contribute at all to society enjoy these services. Homeless, mentally ill, handicapped etc. don't pay anything and still have access to them.

Sure, I pay a crapload for it, but you know what? I think it's worth it. I live a good life, and have the material goods I need, so why should I mind being a part of a system that helps the weak? When I see American movies or sitcoms, I see the same standard of living as Im used to in my country. iPods, flatscreen TV's all that crap. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you looked at the quality of life. So why bother? I don't get it.
 
I think a lot of it is because people don't want to help lazy people or people they don't like.

Don't expect me to help anyone who cannot help themselves. I'm all for helping though who toil day and night to make a decent living for their families. I am totally against those who sit on their ass all day.
 
Really now, you're going to tell us all that your government run health care is superior to the endless array of private health services available to me when I pay for them from my own pocket? Not so. I can buy any procedure anywhere with no restrictions of any kind. You can't, you can only get approved procedures, and try to tell us there's no waiting lists for anything.

The Canadian (or UK) version of government healthcare is indeed far superior to the US version of government healthcare, but none come close to the levels available from private care paid for by the patient from their own funds.

The survey I was drawing on compared Canadian National Healthcare service levels to private American care. And are you honestly telling me that just because you pay more for it makes it a better service? What kind of services would you like, that aren't approved by the government? Because if it isn't funded by the government, I am free to go pay for it myself, and have it done.

Using another government for your comparison isn't the public/private issue that we were discussing.

I don't follow. Are you saying my arguments aren't valid because they happen in Canada?

The same goes for schools. I went to a private college on a private academic scholarship. My school was in no way associated with the government. If you relied on a government education, then you weren't allowed in, it's that simple. Canada has zero private colleges? If they even have one, then your statement "I can choose any school" is false.
I can choose any school I want, provided I have the marks to get in, same as you.

We do have private colleges, and I could have gone there, had I felt like paying for it/moving away from home. I pay tuition, among the largest in the country as a matter of fact. Calgary is filled with some of the most right-wing economists in Canada. And even then a good deal of the profs I have met are confident the government has a place in a few marketplaces.

Occasionally, the market does fail. And when it does, it's typically a catastrophic failure.

Then would you care to tell us why UPS and FedEx every year keep eroding the Post Office's share of the shipping business? I'll give you a hint - the private services are more efficient.

They may be gaining market share against Canada Post in the cities, but they may not be as well. One thing is for sure, they haven't made inroads at all in the small towns they view as too small for a delivery outlet. I'll give you a hint: the free market provides a solution for most people, most of the time. But the free market ALWAYS fails to provide for some people.

And if the public sector is more efficient, then it should still be more efficient in Japan's situation too, right?

Not necessarily. Japan does not have a dispersed rural population. If growing bananas in Brazil works well, should it work well everywhere?

I'm absolutely amazed that you are even trying to convince anyone that a government bureaucracy is more efficient than the private sector. While you're getting your state education, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you enroll in some economics courses?

I'm absolutely amazed you believe the market is always superior. While you're spouting generalizations at people, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you read even an elementary economics textbook? Even they cover market failure.
 
Don't expect me to help anyone who cannot help themselves. I'm all for helping though who toil day and night to make a decent living for their families. I am totally against those who sit on their ass all day.

So am I. But I also see how my tuition is continuing to climb, and those on the bottom economic rung are often not able to afford tuition. As a university degree is very helpful with economic movement, I don't want to see these people get frozen out of one.

However, I also don't think education should be entirely free. $2000 CDN/yr would be appropriate I think.
 
So am I. But I also see how my tuition is continuing to climb, and those on the bottom economic rung are often not able to afford tuition. As a university degree is very helpful with economic movement, I don't want to see these people get frozen out of one.

However, I also don't think education should be entirely free. $2000 CDN/yr would be appropriate I think.

Agreed. Higher education is becoming ridiculously expensive. Hell, had I not received my scholarship I would not have been able to afford S.I.U.
 
Don't expect me to help anyone who cannot help themselves.
Does that include the sick, handicapped and mentally ill?

I'm all for helping though who toil day and night to make a decent living for their families. I am totally against those who sit on their ass all day.
Seriously now, how many of those lazy people are there anyway? I hear the same argument from right-wing Danes, but come on really... we have an unemployment of less than 4%. That's amazingly low, and the few lazy people out there who actually does not want to work, constitute such a small minority that it's pretty irrellevant compared to what we pay in taxes anyway. I mean, whether I pay 38.7 or 39% in taxes dosn't matter, if it means that we can upheld a system that cares for the weak and unfortunate.
 
Really now, you're going to tell us all that your government run health care is superior to the endless array of private health services available to me when I pay for them from my own pocket? Not so. I can buy any procedure anywhere with no restrictions of any kind. You can't, you can only get approved procedures, and try to tell us there's no waiting lists for anything.

Okay, first off, you're flat out wrong: there is a huge restriction on what procedures you can have in any private system: what you can afford. And given the costs of medical procedures in the U.S., very few of us can afford anything not covered by our insurance plans. Which, guess what, places us right back at square one -- only getting approved procedures. This is, of course, without even mentioning the waiting lists (e.g. for organ replacements) that even those who have the private means still have to endure.

Secondly, your assumptions here expose your ignorance. I can't speak for the Canadian system, but there is no prohibition on private medical practice in the UK. So just because you have government-funded health care doesn't mean that if you can't privately pay for a procedure the government refuses to fund.

The fact is that there are a finite amount of resources in this area: a limited number of doctors, hospitals, machinery, organs, etc. We have to have some method in place to determine distribution of these finite resources. Who is willing to pay the most is certainly one option, but it might not the best one, depending on your values.
 
That's completely false. Private health care charge more for the same services and the same waiting lists, and I know this because I've experienced both systems.

Please see my detailed comments below. A pay for yourself system is far superior to any system with a bureaucratic overhead that limits the care options available and limits the number of spaces available for that care. I don't mean 'private' HMO care, but truly private I pay for directly from my own resources health care.

If I use the taxes I now pay to the government for healthcare that they then use for government agencies that decide what and how much I'm allowed, I would get more actual medical care and less government workers paid with my money to make for me what should be my decisions to decide for myself.



:confused: I don't think any single country has a private-only or public-only school system, including colleges.


Agreed, but not the topic. Most people get their education solely from the public school system and a much smaller number get their education solely from private schools.

My point was that paying for your own schooling directly allows more choice of where to go to school than paying the government through taxes, and then letting them tell you what schools they will let you attend, and that they will pay for with your money. My other point as addressed below is that government involvement in this process is also far less efficient than direct choice.



:lol: maybe you should open your eyes. Just look at the energy sector, and ask Californians how efficient their energy companies are now that they're private.


Perhaps you should open your eyes and read what I said?

Agreed, but infrastructure works best as a monopoly without competition. Healthcare and education are very different services.


Power generation and distribution are infrastructure. :crazyeye:


--------

It is actually free.


...Sure, I pay a crapload for it...


So is it free or isn't it?

It may be free for a homeless person, but that hardly makes it free.

You just admitted to paying "a crapload" for it, so please explain if you would how that is better than my simply paying for my own healthcare for myself?


Just because you can afford to pay your government-forced charity doesn't make your system better.

Just because you don't mind paying your government-forced charity doesn't make your system better.

Just because we both have a similar standard of living doesn't make your system better.


Please tell us why you believe your government run, buracracy riddled, choice restricted, waiting-lists for treatment system is better than a purely private system where I simply pay out of my own pocket for any medical care I choose to receive?


--------

The survey I was drawing on compared Canadian National Healthcare service levels to private American care.


Don't confuse a survery based on the average level of "private American care" with the available level of care for a private citizen that pays his medical expenses directly from his own pocket.

"Private American care" would include anyone part of a HMO, health plan, etc. This is an apples and oranges comparison to Canada's system as American HMO's are restricted as to the levels of care, and costs they can charge, etc. by the US government through medicare, medicaid, et. al., and thus are not really private. If the government tells an HMO what procedures they can do, what the payment they will receive is, etc. then that is not the private care I advocate and prefer.

A truly private health care - exactly like I have where if I have an expense I just pay it, has no such restrictions.



And are you honestly telling me that just because you pay more for it makes it a better service? What kind of services would you like, that aren't approved by the government? Because if it isn't funded by the government, I am free to go pay for it myself, and have it done.


Yes, in most cases higher cost does allow more treatment options.

There are a huge number of treatment options that government healthcare won't pay for, whether it be your government's system or our not really "private" system that is told what to do by our government. If you would like I will spend the time to get you a list.


If you can find a treatment you need and then pay for it yourself, then you just admitted that:

A) The government doesn't cover every treatment you consider worth having.

B) That private healthcare is an option you are willing to participate in.

C) That your government care you pay for isn't using your money as efficiently as it could be.



I don't follow. Are you saying my arguments aren't valid because they happen in Canada?


Not at all. IMHO Canada has one of the best run government heathcare systems available, and it would be the logical choice for anyone attempting to defend that type of bureaucracy.

I am saying to only compare it to a truly private system, not the US government's HMO mess. The OP topic discusses being taxed, and I said I prefer to not be taxed for healthcare and education, but to provide for myself. Please feel free to compare your bureaucracies to my personally preferred purely private choose-for-myself, pay-for-myself system.



I can choose any school I want, provided I have the marks to get in, same as you.

We do have private colleges, and I could have gone there, had I felt like paying for it/moving away from home. I pay tuition, among the largest in the country as a matter of fact.


So let's say you do choose to aspire to a private education. In that case are you telling us you still would prefer to be taxed for a public education that you didn't receive? That's like being forced to pay for a meal you didn't eat, a show you didn't see, or a book you didn't read. :confused:

You can only choose any school you want to if you abandon the very public education system you are defending, and include the private schools as well. In order for your choices to include all schools, then you must see that public education facilities are a smaller sub-set of "all schools". You can not choose any school without admitting that public education doesn't include every school, and therefore by nature limits your educational options.

Wouldn't it be better to have just paid for whatever education you received in a direct manner? Cut out the middle-man? Who needs the government involved at all? Why add a layer of fat, overhead and salaries for some government agency when you are perfectly capable of picking your own school? How can that extra layer possibly be more efficient than direct, individual choice?



Calgary is filled with some of the most right-wing economists in Canada. And even then a good deal of the profs I have met are confident the government has a place in a few marketplaces.

Occasionally, the market does fail. And when it does, it's typically a catastrophic failure.


I don't see how these comments relate to where you choose to go to school or how to most efficiently pay for it.

I personally am in agreement that the government has a place in many marketplaces, but as a rules-enforcer, not as a competitor with the private sector as is the case in healthcare and education.



They may be gaining market share against Canada Post in the cities, but they may not be as well. One thing is for sure, they haven't made inroads at all in the small towns they view as too small for a delivery outlet. I'll give you a hint: the free market provides a solution for most people, most of the time. But the free market ALWAYS fails to provide for some people.


A hundred years ago there was no UPS or FedEx, so they are obviously gaining market share. I will again seek links for you if you even try to deny the rise of the private package services.

If as you claim, government is more efficient, then there would be no UPS or FedEx at all. If as I claim, private sector is more efficient, then there would be increasing growth and market share expansion of the private package carriers. Would you like some links to illustrate which of us is correct?

Government also "ALWAYS fails to provide for some people." Frankly, some people expect something for nothing and even when given something still complain. Our topic was the efficiency of the government vs. the private sector, and forced taxes to support said same. Social engineering for the benefit of the masses is a topic for another thread.



Not necessarily. Japan does not have a dispersed rural population. If growing bananas in Brazil works well, should it work well everywhere?


If government run systems really are more efficient as you claim, then why shouldn't it work everywhere? I claimed private systems are more efficient and gave the privatization of Japan's Postal System as an example to support my view.



I'm absolutely amazed you believe the market is always superior. While you're spouting generalizations at people, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you read even an elementary economics textbook? Even they cover market failure.

Bold by me.


Please provide a link to where I said the market is always superior. In order to have a discussion it works best if you read what was said and not add your comments to my statements.

The market is not always superior, just most of the time. Please see my concession to infrastructure above as already mentioned. Other examples include police, courts, national defense and market regulation.

I have given specific examples, hardly the "generalizations" as you claim. If as you claim government really is the master at efficiency then ask yourself why does the private sector even exist? Why does any government operation ever get privatized? When privatization occurs why is efficiency always the number one reason for the decision?

Market failure has nothing to do with the topic. Any economics textbook will tell you one of the benefits of the private sector over government bureaucracy is efficiency.


EDIT - edited for clarity and corrected typo.
 
Does that include the sick, handicapped and mentally ill?

See the second part of my original post.


Seriously now, how many of those lazy people are there anyway? I hear the same argument from right-wing Danes, but come on really... we have an unemployment of less than 4%. That's amazingly low, and the few lazy people out there who actually does not want to work, constitute such a small minority that it's pretty irrellevant compared to what we pay in taxes anyway. I mean, whether I pay 38.7 or 39% in taxes dosn't matter, if it means that we can upheld a system that cares for the weak and unfortunate.

Our unemployment statistics only include those who are still on unemployment payroll, and I think the ones that are on unemployment is 4.5% over here. These people who refuse to work are not weak, and they are not unfortunate, they are parasites.
 
I am saying to only compare it to a truly private system, not the US government's HMO mess.

I see. You want him to compare real world socialized medicine schemes (i.e. as practiced in particular countries) with something that exists purely as a fantasy in your head? I think that you'd be better off doing the comparison yourself, since you're the only one with direct access to said fantasy.

He refers to a survey that compares to real world systems, one generally held as the hallmark of privatized medicine in the first world, and one in a socialized scheme. You refer to... how you think things could be better. I believe you're the one lacking in evidentiary support here, not he.

Or does your "truly private" system exist anywhere on Earth? If it does, can you demonstrate (you know, with facts) that it provides better service or more "efficiency" (though efficiency of what, exactly, has remained undefined here) than the systems referred to above? Or do you draw your conclusions simply from a priori support for an economic ideology?

I can think of several places with "truly private" systems: all of them that come to mind exist in the third world. I, for one, would much rather endure a layer of bureaucracy than subject myself to those conditions.
 
I see. You want him to compare real world socialized medicine schemes (i.e. as practiced in particular countries) with something that exists purely as a fantasy in your head? I think that you'd be better off doing the comparison yourself, since you're the only one with direct access to said fantasy.

He refers to a survey that compares to real world systems, one generally held as the hallmark of privatized medicine in the first world, and one in a socialized scheme. You refer to... how you think things could be better. I believe you're the one lacking in evidentiary support here, not he.

Or does your "truly private" system exist anywhere on Earth? If it does, can you demonstrate (you know, with facts) that it provides better service or more "efficiency" (though efficiency of what, exactly, has remained undefined here) than the systems referred to above? Or do you draw your conclusions simply from a priori support for an economic ideology?

I can think of several places with "truly private" systems: all of them that come to mind exist in the third world. I, for one, would much rather endure a layer of bureaucracy than subject myself to those conditions.

Bold by me.


Fantasy? Sorry, but it's very much reality and exists all over the globe. :confused:


This thread is about taxes. My statement was that I would prefer to not pay taxes for healthcare and education, and instead simply pay for them myself.

Government run healthcare and education are historically fairly recent concepts, so not being forced to pay for them is far from a "fantasy".


Now pay attention::

When my kids needed braces, there was no government program to pay for it. We simply took them to a dentist, had the work done, and paid the bills as they came in. No government intervention of any kind, i.e. truly private medical care.

When my daughter broke her nose, she was taken to the emergency room where they set her nose. It started to heal crooked, so we took her to a private cosmetic surgeon and he re-set it correctly and did surgery to reshape it back to as it was before the accident. There was government intervention at the start by an overworked, young, inexperienced doctor who did the best he could but whose work needed fixing. The corrected medical care came from a truly private physician that I paid for with our personal funds, i.e. truly private medical care.

When my eyes grew bad as I aged and my distance vision deterred there was no government program to pay for them - not glasses, nothing. I didn't want glasses anyway but preferred the best care, in this case state of the art wave-front LASIK. I went to an optometrist, had the procedure done, and paid the bill myself. No government intervention of any kind, i.e. truly private medical care.


I'm not alone. Open a phone book at look at all the non-government medical care available. Whenever a patient simply walks in and has medical services without any government involvement that is truly private medical care.

I don't just "think things could be better", private medical care is better. Without it my kids would have teeth growing in crooked and into each other, my daughter's nose would be uneven, and I would be nearly blind. Hardly "a priori support" as you claim. :lol:

If you prefer waiting in line for your doctor, and then being told the treatment you want isn't covered, and then told the inferior treatment that is available has a waiting list, that's fine with me. Frankly I prefer going to doctors that are of high enough quality so they don't need to work as government providers but can instead support their own practices, yes, truly private medical care pratices. I did laugh when you said "subject myself to those conditions." You seem to have never been to a private doctor. Let's just say it's a much more pleasant experience than seeing one paid-for by the government.

As your sig doesn't say where you're from do be sure to tell us all. Based on your lack of knowledge of how medical care works here on Earth, my guess would be Mars. :D
 
Supposedly there is no fedral income tax law for employees. I just saw a movie about it (see the movie thread).
 
Fantasy? Sorry, but it's very much reality and exists all over the globe. :confused:

...

As your sig doesn't say where you're from do be sure to tell us all. Based on your lack of knowledge of how medical care works here on Earth, my guess would be Mars. :D

I live in the United States, which enjoys a vast system of medical research subsidies, education benefits, insurance providers, and a not-so-small degree of government funded health care (though not as large as I might prefer).

And where, exactly, are you from? Because you specifically discounted the complex system of insurance and government funds underlying medical practitioners in the US.

Or are you sincerely suggesting that all of the doctors and dentists you listed:
A) Received no government support (including, but not limited to, direct funding for their educations, subsidized loans, or funding for their institutions) for their education.
B) Take no payments from insurance companies on behalf of their patients.
C) Take no payments from medicare/medicaid (assuming you're in the US) on behalf of their patients.
D) Used no techniques and/or technologies derived from government funded (see item A for a short list of possible forms this might take) research.
E) Carry no malpractice insurance (I must say, if you're seeing doctors who don't carry this, you're rather brave!).

Your single private payments almost certainly don't constitute an economic system for any of these practitioners. You criticized the system of socialized medicine and the system of regulated insurance. The amounts you were required to pay were no doubt greatly influenced by the above factors, all of which derive from government funding (and, consequently, taxes) or insurance schemes. How much more would you have had to pay for any of those procedures if they hadn't been subsidized through the above mechanisms?

Your suggestion that a handful of procedures payed for out of pocket is in any way, shape, or form comparable to socialized medicine is the equivalent of me saying that because I once traded desktop support for a month's rent we ought to replace government backed currency with a barter system. Yes, it may work in some cases; it may even suit the needs of both parties better in many cases. But to suggest that either your "truly private" medicine or my barter system is better for more people, more often without something more substantial than a handful of examples is a bit ridiculous.
 
I live in the United States, which enjoys a vast system of medical research subsidies, education benefits, insurance providers, and a not-so-small degree of government funded health care (though not as large as I might prefer).

And where, exactly, are you from? Because you specifically discounted the complex system of insurance and government funds underlying medical practitioners in the US.

Or are you sincerely suggesting that all of the doctors and dentists you listed:
A) Received no government support (including, but not limited to, direct funding for their educations, subsidized loans, or funding for their institutions) for their education.
B) Take no payments from insurance companies on behalf of their patients.
C) Take no payments from medicare/medicaid (assuming you're in the US) on behalf of their patients.
D) Used no techniques and/or technologies derived from government funded (see item A for a short list of possible forms this might take) research.
E) Carry no malpractice insurance (I must say, if you're seeing doctors who don't carry this, you're rather brave!).

Your single private payments almost certainly don't constitute an economic system for any of these practitioners. You criticized the system of socialized medicine and the system of regulated insurance. The amounts you were required to pay were no doubt greatly influenced by the above factors, all of which derive from government funding (and, consequently, taxes) or insurance schemes. How much more would you have had to pay for any of those procedures if they hadn't been subsidized through the above mechanisms?

Your suggestion that a handful of procedures payed for out of pocket is in any way, shape, or form comparable to socialized medicine is the equivalent of me saying that because I once traded desktop support for a month's rent we ought to replace government backed currency with a barter system. Yes, it may work in some cases; it may even suit the needs of both parties better in many cases. But to suggest that either your "truly private" medicine or my barter system is better for more people, more often without something more substantial than a handful of examples is a bit ridiculous.


Truly private medical care. Think what that means. You deny it exists. It doesn't not exist because a doctor got the same public education that most people did. It doesn't not exist because he drove to work on a public road. It doesn't not exist because the electricity for his office comes from the public power grid. It just means non-socialized medicine. Pure capitalism. I walk in and pay 100% of my bill from my own pocket and the doctor gets no government payment at all. This happens all over the world every day.

I'll say it now for you for the third time now, I am not against taxes for many things, but would prefer to not be taxed for healthcare and education. Those forms of socialism I would gladly do without as I am capable of making my own decisions for myself, and purchasing my own services in those areas for myself. I don't need or want a nanny state wasting my money for me. It's a very simple concept, why are you having such difficulty with it?

As my sig clearly states, I am from Vegas. If you need to ask where I'm from then we will add that to the list of simple things that seem to elude your understanding. :crazyeye:


Let's look at your attempt to discredit my obvious examples of the existence of truly private healthcare shall we?


A) Education funding sources have nothing to do with if a doctor currently runs a government or a private practice. That's not what's under discussion. We are disusing the forced taxation of citizens to pay for government healthcare and education. I went to a public high school and drive to work on public roads, does that somehow make me not part of the private sector now? No it doesn't. Most people in the US were educated with government funds. That doesn't make their chosen profession a government one, or mean a doctor with a private practice doesn't practice truly private medical care. Irrelevant issue.

B) Many doctors take no insurance payments at all - zero. Let's use the doctor who performed my wave-front LASIK treatment as an example. His practice is purely, truly private medical care. Whoops, you said such medical care doesn't exist. I believe your exact words to me were "purely as a fantasy in your head". Stop, take a deep breath, and do your best to try to think for a moment. Can you tell us why he exists? Because LASIK isn't normally a government approved treatment! Yet another of the nearly endless examples of how your government treatment is inferior to my preferred system of truly private medical care. Go ahead and take a moment and wipe your glasses clean, and think before you again deny the existence of truly private medical care.

C) Same as B. No Medicare, Medicaid or other government subsidy or payment. Yes, businesses can and do thrive without the government to support them.

D) LASIK was developed by the private sector, used by private medical care, and is in no way a government procedure.

E) Of course the doctors have malpractice insurance. Why bring this up? This has nothing to do with the tax issue or quality of care issues under discussion. My business has a huge insurance bill for fire, theft and vehicle collisions. Does this mean I'm now not in the private sector any longer? Of course not. Irrelevant issue.


Well, my LASIK was truly private medical care. And I guess your government medical care is of lower quality because it doesn't cover such treatments. Comments?


You asked "How much more would you have had to pay for any of those procedures if they hadn't been subsidized through the above mechanisms?" The answer is zero, because LASIK isn't subsidized government medical care at all in any way. It's the truly private medical care you deny exists.

My examples do compose part of a system because many people use the same truly private medical care I do. Many medical practices are in no way associated with the government's messed up efforts to intervene in healthcare. This system is far more than the "handful" you claim, I only gave a few personal examples. As I suggested, open a phone book and see for yourself. There will be pages of ads of private medical practitioners, many of which receive no government money at all.

I stand by my statements that socialized medicine is not as efficient as truly private medical care, and that I would prefer to not be taxed just so an extra layer of government can spend my money - not on actual medical services - but to tell me what procedures I can and can not have my own money pay for. Obviously less efficient than me just spending my money directly on truly private medical care.

I did like your statement "Yes, it may work in some cases", that's much better than denying truly private healthcare even exists. Maybe there's hope for your thinking ability after all. You called my few examples leading to a conclusion "ridiculous". Why? Because you don't like them as they disprove your denial of the existence of truly private medical care? Do you need more examples? Are my examples not understandable to you? Please tell me exactly why you find my thinking "ridiculous", and feel free to provide your own examples in support of your own statements before lowering yourself to mocking the examples I provided. This helps lead us to an adult discussion that is on topic. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom