1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

So many leftist on these boards?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aapo, Jun 3, 2009.

  1. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,855
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    True Darwinists would let everyone die from their health issues (ideally before reproductive age) to strengthen the rest of the population.
     
  2. Bei1052

    Bei1052 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,457
    Maybe there's a disconnect going on. No one said Europe was suffocating. I said that where it is easier to get a certain degree, that the jobs requiring that degree pay less because of competition. What does any of the above have to do with that?

    *sigh*

    Don't worry about it.

    Could of fooled me :p

    You're some equating a "right to health care" to mean "being allowed to live", which makes little sense. By not providing extensive health care, no one is taking away anyone's right to live. They still have it. My logic "dictates" that those who can afford more extensive health care should be allowed to buy it and that those who can't be provided the basic level of health care. There's nothing wrong with that and, indeed, a few countries already follow that model.

    Ummm... No.

    And the qualify of UHC would be better? It might be, but I doubt it.
     
  3. Bei1052

    Bei1052 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,457
    That could possibly be because we were talking about taking out loans and the debt one accrues from them, not the cost-benefit analysis of going to school.

    ...But, hell, even ignoring that, under no circumstance ever have I seen a college education referred to as a gamble since there's a clear correlation between an education and income. Much less compared to paying for someone's surgery so that they'll get out of poverty.
     
  4. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Robespierre and his Thought Police v.0.2? "I don't think you're virtuous enough..." :lol:
     
  5. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,223
    Location:
    Montana
    If that's what you kids call moderates these days... ;)
     
  6. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,223
    Location:
    Montana
    I'll read it if you read it



    actually I'll read it anyway
     
  7. otago

    otago Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,448
    Strange how some so called conservatives equate wealth with class.
    If some NASCAR following, gun owning, god fearing bubba wins twenty million on a lottery it seems some conservatives believe that will lift him in the class system.
    How come the word class as in working etc is used in the US, did you not throw all that tea in the harbour so you could all be the same classless society ?
     
  8. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,855
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Depends what you major in & also keep in mind the economy you're entered in a year or two is vastly different than the economy a graduating student went out into ten years ago. If you have a major like literature or philosophy you'd probably be better off going to trade school.
     
  9. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,225
    Location:
    Sydney
    You seem to be equating anything to the left with complete government control and suppression. I mean, state intervention is solely the domain of a 'benevolent dictatorship'?

    I don't see redressing an obvious problem as bad. Also, it is a fact that a greater degree of equality (without perfect equality) is more beneficial for an economy, not just socially, but also economically. So that argument fails on both fronts.

    The aim of government economic policy, broadly, is to smooth out the fluctuations in the business cycle. In order to do this, they must, periodically, rescue very large corporations, and in doing so, minimise the degree to which the unimpeded business cycle would have detrimental effects on the economy. This also ties in with general government spending. Government spending is an injection into the economy, and so can be seen to be economically good, not disadvantageous.

    Well, I know it doesn't work out, but the idea of the democratic system is to be able to elect those people that will best represent yourself. Now, if you want people in government who are competent, it is your right to vote them in. So, it is fair assumption that if people want those that know best to be in the government, they will vote for who is best to be in the government. Also, the government often employs and consults those professionals and academics that do know best, in order to achieve their aims.

    That's not the majority leftist view. If something is to the left, it does not mean that it does not expouse the basic principles of the free market. However, it does mean that it is regulated and controlled, to gain the optimum outcome for society. Now, I don't exactly know what particular thing you are referring to here (other than pure communism), but I do know that it is definitely not the majority leftist opinion.

    There is a difference between a need and a want. Health care is a need. And it needs to be provided immediately, for all those that wish it to be. Now, seeing as it cannot be supplied immediately, for all, the idea that the free market will sort it out doesn't really help me if I've got a collapsed lung and need instant treatment.

    What's more, it is a right (or at least should be) in any truly egalitarian and advanced society.
     
  10. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,327
    Location:
    Estonia
    I have to repeat what has been said several times: look at where these people live.

    Mostly in US, Canada and Western Europe: countries that have had no experience whatsoever with truly leftist economy. Therefore they think that:
    1) leftist economy can actually work;
    2) being leftist is cool and makes them look intelligent, caring and socially responsible.

    It is as simple as that.

    NB! Are you Finn?
     
  11. plarq

    plarq Crazy forever

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,158
    Location:
    None of the above
    We kill the weak and make the strong reproduction machine.
     
  12. otago

    otago Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,448
    Wrong dear boy, some of us have lived in countries that could give the Russians of the sixties a jealousy complex when it came to stupid laws regarding trade and business during the sixties and seventies
    I believe in pragmatism which I notice countries like Estonia did not follow when it came to taxation.
    If the system you have now is so good why are you in so much debt ?
    What do the wealthy countries of the EU owe you ?
     
  13. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    This board is economically to the centre. There are people on either side, but for every MobBoss there's a Richard Cribb, for every RRW there's a Merkinball, for every Cheezy there's a Winner. Most people are wishy washy centreist economically, and socially liberal.
     
  14. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,327
    Location:
    Estonia
    As you call these laws "stupid", am I to conclude we are on the same side of this argument?
    EDIT: Anyway, I doubt any place you have lived came close to outlawing private entrepreneurship.
    I am quite convinced that if there is one good, sensible thing in Estonia, it is our taxation system.
    At the beginning of this year, our public debt (in relation to GDP) was lowest in Europe (and third lowest in the world). We've been forced to borrow a bit since, to avoid cutting too deep into reserves, but our budget deficit is still below 3% to stay within Maastricht criteria (unlike most of Europe's), so I am not sure what you are talking about. It is true that some of our private businesses and households have borrowed quite extensively, but on the other hand people have also saved quite a lot. Why have we been borrowing? Mostly because very aggressive credit policies of Scandinavian banks, who dominate our market. But this matter is hardly a related to taxation, is it?
    Why should they owe us anything?
     
  15. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,327
    Location:
    Estonia
    That is but half of the truth at best.
    It is true that excess liquidity causes interest rates to fall and it is also true that our central bank did little to stop the lending spree (like raising reserve requirements). But you should also keep in mind that the money lent did not come from Estonia, but from Sweden, which was where the excess money actually was. Higher reserve requirements here alone would not have had especially decisive effect on the lending spree.
    Anyway, that seems to drift OT.
     
  16. bigfatron

    bigfatron Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Location:
    London
    Almost all countries except teh very poorest follow that model - every western country I know offers some most basic level of free health care, and I don't know of any democracy that bans private health care as a top up if wanted.

    So what you are arguing about is:
    - what level of basic care is appropriate?
    - how should it be funded?

    Looking at funding first:

    Most European companies use a compulsory insurance funding approach, whereby working (and some non-working) adults must pay insurance premiums; essentially it is a payroll tax.

    The UK actually has a specific payroll tax for health and pension provision - National Insurance - levied on both worker and company, although the direct funding link has been broken for some decades now and the result is simply another general tax impost.

    The US - IIRC - uses a rather complex combination of company and individual health insurance.

    Now the key to realise here is that the more voluntary basis of the US scheme results in a cost per treatment about 50% higher than the European model, IIRC.

    This results from a number of causes:
    - the more litigious US system combined with profit making health care units adn an insurance based system incites medical professionals to carry out every single remotely applicable diagnostic test or treatment, regardless of the chance of its relevance.
    - Plus profit needs to be extracted for healthcare providers, insurance companies, administrative middlemen, etc.
    - And health professsionals in the US generally have very high college fee repayments to support, resulting in high initial wage levels.
    - Finally healthcare still carries a value of service and social responsibility in Europe that is absent in the US; Europeans generally view healthcare workers in a similar way that US citizens view their military personnel. As a result healthcare workers tend to accept lower than market pay in return for strong pension provision, job security and social status.

    So, keep in mind that in the US - for cultural and structural reason - they pay far more for equivalent healthcare than countries with different funding systems/social backgrounds.

    Now in terms of level of free service - again Europe tends to set the bar higher; most medical services are free at point of use in European countries with the general exception of lifestyle or cosmetic treatments.

    The benefit of this is lower beaurocracy (although I appreciate that this is hard to believe seeing how much beaurocracy even a free system can generate!) - in general in the UK at least there is no need to chase around after a patient or their insurance company because you don't need to arrange for payment. As someone who has provate healthcover for certain aspects as a work benefit, I have personally seen that it can result in over-diagnosis as well as an enormous amount of paper-pushing.

    So, I think your basic premise is wrong - all developed countries already have the system you suggest, the relevant questions are : how much free provision and how is the fundign organised?

    All the evidence suggests that a 'low bar', voluntary funding regime is very expensive and for little or no healthcare gain.

    All the best
    BFR
     
  17. bigfatron

    bigfatron Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Location:
    London
    Why do you describe this as a straw man?

    The US system has a low bar for free care (laissez faire would equate to no free care, which,as I say exists nowhere apart from the most deprived countries) and has a voluntary element to topping up that basic free care - this is the example that can be compared to the European model, and it is definitely more expensive and provides minimal healthcare benefits.

    The US healthcare system is a bit chunky to be described as a 'strawman' IMHO! :lol:
     
  18. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,507
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I think the specific solution to health care is to set aside a reasonable portion of the public budget to provide some healthcare to everyone in the populace. If an inventor wants to get their new medical service publicly funded, then they need to make it cheaper than a service already being provided. (or, but more difficultly, cause a populational level of increased wealth that offsets its costs). Then, wealthy people can purchase better healthcare according to whatever system they want.

    The advantage is that a huge portion of healthcare is information technology, which becomes cheaper over time. This means that an information technology can be used on the rich people, if they're early adopters, and then allow it to move to the point where middle-class people can take advantage of it. Finally, it should move to the point where the poorest of the poor are.

    The main weakness is researching medical treatments for those who have no money, and are rare in a population.
     
  19. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    If they are good medics, they deserve good pay. If they need resources, and can use them well, they should get them. Here endeth Flying Pig's theory of Giving Stuff to Public People
     
  20. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,225
    Location:
    Sydney
    This is probably not a good way of doing things, IMO. I'd assume a lot of new medical technology is prohibitively expensive (take MRI, for example). However, they may provide unparalleled benefits for society, and health care. But, due to their cost (which cannot be minimised without further research), no more research can be undertaken without public funding. But, if public funding isn't available due to normally prohibitive cost, then how will the product be made cheaper? And then how will the public gain from what would/could be of massive benefit to them?

    Basically, in health services, it's more about quality than price, IMO.
     

Share This Page