Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Right genius, but that should not be how we run health care. And in generalm thats how we do it in Canada and the UK. I'm saying, the profit motive is in conflict with that.
The profit motive is alive and well in Canadian healthcare. The only difference is the profiteers are doctors. Heathcare union workers are also profit seeking but they see it more as an entitlement and don't believe that their profit should be linked to performance.
It's not at all the same thing. You missed the point again... in a public system the money stays in the system, its not paid out as a profit at the year end.
Without competition there is no incentive to do work more efficiently which means you are no further ahead.
Canada and the UK use that model now, although its eroded in Canada by capitalist influence, which is part of its problem now. What country do you live in?
The are arguments to be made for a single payer system but insurance company profits is not one of them. There are huge inefficiencies in a public system that more than make up for 2-3% which gets skimmed off the top by private insurers.

The primary argument for single payer is that healthcare insurance is not a product where a true free market can exist because it is only practical to purchase as part of a group where all members are compelled to pay. This is why most americans get their health insurance from their employer. This has led to a situation where workers wages are reduced because of employer insurance tax and employers restort to all kinds of rationing to control costs. This has also led to a situation where the government feels compelled to regulate the insurance companies to the point where they operate like a cartel. Given that reality a government insurance system where people are still free to buy private insurance makes much more sense.

The misguide ban on private medicine in Canada is one of the biggest flaws and it is only tolerated because people have the option of going to the US.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The arms race was what caused the USSR to go broke.
That is a popular myth. What really happened is the bankrupt Russian economic system could not produce the wealth required to look after their people. It was already falling behind by the 60s but the oil price spike in the 70s delayed the inevitable. Russia would have collapsed by 90s no matter what the US did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The profit motive is alive and well in Canadian healthcare. The only difference is the profiteers are doctors. Heathcare union workers are also profit seeking but they see it more as an entitlement and don't believe that their profit should be linked to performance.

Without competition there is no incentive to do work more efficiently which means you are no further ahead.

This argument does not apply to health care. For one it doesn't matter where the funding is coming from, people will form their unions and that will be a problem... especially in health care from what I've personally seen. But auto workers form unions as well, so that is beside the point of where funding comes from. Ultimately these people simply want to get paid.

Second, the argument that unions remove quality of work because there is no incentive, does not apply well to health care workers. Thats like saying scientists become less effective once they are unionized. At the front lines we are talking about professionals here, some of these people have taken oaths... how many of us have done that to do our job?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, the argument that unions remove quality of work because there is no incentive, does not apply well to health care workers.
Not all healthcare workers are skilled professionals like nurses. The auto worker unions created no end of problems for the car companies but in the end the companies collasped and they were forced to compromise. The problem with any government union is there is no threat of bankrupcy which means the unions demand and get a lot more than they deserve to get given what people in the private sector would get for the same job. The difference between private and public sector pay is a drain on the system that must be accounted for if one wants to compare the costs of public vs private systems.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greed and healing are a contradition in terms - that is why America will never have a civilized form of real health care. Cheapness on the part of the tax payer along with a greed driven medical and pharma industry will NEVER change...because if gathering more wealth than you need at the expense of others losing their lives..and quality of life...is a form of insanity.

America is insane...doctors are no longer doctors..patients are customers selling themseleves..once we become a fleshly commodity - a type of cannibalizm sets in...For instance this old math professor that I run into once in a while stated "If the poor and the homeless are healed..the system would fall apart in Canada" _

This can be said of the medical industry - If health imporves in humans - parasites that depend on sickness who invent terms like wellness will be out of work - keep the people in ill health and keep the crimminals running wild - and the system thrives...If you want to be part of a consumer society where the consumer is the meat going to be consumed be my guest - I want no part of the eating of human flesh or the blood drinking that is religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed and healing are a contradition in terms - that is why America will never have a civilized form of real health care. Cheapness on the part of the tax payer along with a greed driven medical and pharma industry will NEVER change...because if gathering more wealth than you need at the expense of others losing their lives..and quality of life...is a form of insanity.

America is insane...doctors are no longer doctors..patients are customers selling themseleves..once we become a fleshly commodity - a type of cannibalizm sets in...For instance this old math professor that I run into once in a while stated "If the poor and the homeless are healed..the system would fall apart in Canada" _

This can be said of the medical industry - If health imporves in humans - parasites that depend on sickness who invent terms like wellness will be out of work - keep the people in ill health and keep the crimminals running wild - and the system thrives...If you want to be part of a consumer society where the consumer is the meat going to be consumed be my guest - I want no part of the eating of human flesh or the blood drinking that is religion.

It is sad isn't it?

That humanity is forgotten by some humans, or people who seem to be humans?

People that seem to have forgotten that humans are actually living breathing beings, who's rights should supersede the rights of corporations and banks to extract all their wealth.

I shudder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuzadd and Sir Bandelot. What school of economics are you getting your material from? It's quite hilarious, really! Understanding economics takes a little reading and it isn't about arithmetic. You should save this thread and if you ever do crack a book on economics and understand it then you will get a real hoot out of what you have posted.

I must warn you that most mainstream economists are more "econometrists" studying macro economies and aggregates with all the necessary mathematical formulae to put the most ardent student to sleep. Their prime interest is in how government should steer the economy. Paul Krugman of the New York times is an excellent example and Nobel prize winner in the field. The reason Paul has a column in the Times, at least in my view, is he writes his opinion of what he believes government needs to do to keep the economy bubbling and the disastrous consequences of not following his advice. It is his view that government needs to control the economy and he is almost always on the side of regulation. He is a socialist politico-econometrist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the history of how we get health care.

First of all thieves come along and claim land for themselves and tell the people that they will protect them for other thieves for asmall stipend. Then they decide they wish to be known as Kings and Queens and Lords and Ladies and such. Then they say they will protect the people's money from debasement by making "official" money. Once they do that they start to debase the money because they need more to keep themselves living according to how they are accustomed. then they invent a "buffer" called government becuase too many of them are getting their heads chopped off by the peasants. The legislature will now bear the brint of the peasant' displeasure. Meanwhile, the money is further debased by monetary policies, such as fractional reserve banking - a system invented by bankers and persuaded to be used by government in an alliance to be able to create money at will.

Once they have a toe hold on the economy they start failing in providing justice. A thing they promised so instead of correcting the injustices they create more to just make them "equal" and no one is complaining anymore. Eventually, someone does complain about the government making these other guys equal and leaving them out. Once again the ones who receive largesse from government would end up destitute should they lose the privileges to which they have become accustomed. Well, society would be adversely affected if that should happen any way. So they decide to debase the currency even more to pay for more "equality".

Finally, they go broke because too many are living off the State and too few are producing.

But it starts with government, getting a toehold in the economy of a society first. This is the primary area that goes under assault. The markets become unfair because the money is not stable and it gets harder to determine value with the unstable currency. People become a bit neurotic about their buying habits and eccentricities abound. The government then blames the people in the market for being too greedy. It is, by this time, already paying many citizens entitlements and starts to tell them how to spend their entitlement and taxes are necessary to keep them.

Someone mentioned growth and that the society would collapse if growth stopped. Well, it is true that if you are not growing you are either stagnant or shrinking. Economies can grow, be stagnant or shrink. It is governments that can't shrink and must keep economies growing and it is a terrible thing if an economy should ever stop or shrink. They can't get the revenues they need to sustain themselves from a shrinking or stagnant economy. They panic if that occurs and start doing things like increasing taxes, or providing incentives to stimulate the economy and they keep corporations going which are huge sources of revenues for them.

They also have a little tool called "inflation" that they use to try and avoid shrinking economies. Inflation encourages people to spend and not save. So it is a great tool to get people to keep production up by consuming. The economy grows, the tax base grows and government grows. This explains why hoarders are frowned upon and subject to all manner of pejorative terms when the economy shrinks. It is claimed to be unpatriotic to save under such conditions.

Anyway inflation encourages this growth and turns it into exponential growth. Who wants to spend their savings later when they can see they do not have as much purchasing power in the future as they do in the present.

I think that's enough for a start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kuzadd and Sir Bandelot. What school of economics are you getting your material from? It's quite hilarious, really! Understanding economics takes a little reading and it isn't about arithmetic. You should save this thread and if you ever do crack a book on economics and understand it then you will get a real hoot out of what you have posted.

I must warn you that most mainstream economists are more "econometrists" studying macro economies and aggregates with all the necessary mathematical formulae to put the most ardent student to sleep. Their prime interest is in how government should steer the economy. Paul Krugman of the New York times is an excellent example and Nobel prize winner in the field. The reason Paul has a column in the Times, at least in my view, is he writes his opinion of what he believes government needs to do to keep the economy bubbling and the disastrous consequences of not following his advice. It is his view that government needs to control the economy and he is almost always on the side of regulation. He is a socialist politico-econometrist.

as you are well aware from our previous discussions, I have a firm handle on economics.

So don't bother with the high and mighty routine.

Why don't you tell me how many schools of economic thought are out there, and which one you adhere to , and do you know of any others yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the history of how we get health care.

First of all thieves come along and claim land for themselves and tell the people that they will protect them for other thieves for asmall stipend. Then they decide they wish to be known as Kings and Queens and Lords and Ladies and such. Then they say they will protect the people's money from debasement by making "official" money. Once they do that they start to debase the money because they need more to keep themselves living according to how they are accustomed. then they invent a "buffer" called government becuase too many of them are getting their heads chopped off by the peasants. The legislature will now bear the brint of the peasant' displeasure. Meanwhile, the money is further debased by monetary policies, such as fractional reserve banking - a system invented by bankers and persuaded to be used by government in an alliance to be able to create money at will.

Once they have a toe hold on the economy they start failing in providing justice. A thing they promised so instead of correcting the injustices they create more to just make them "equal" and no one is complaining anymore. Eventually, someone does complain about the government making these other guys equal and leaving them out. Once again the ones who receive largesse from government would end up destitute should they lose the privileges to which they have become accustomed. Well, society would be adversely affected if that should happen any way. So they decide to debase the currency even more to pay for more "equality".

Finally, they go broke because too many are living off the State and too few are producing.

But it starts with government, getting a toehold in the economy of a society first. This is the primary area that goes under assault. The markets become unfair because the money is not stable and it gets harder to determine value with the unstable currency. People become a bit neurotic about their buying habits and eccentricities abound. The government then blames the people in the market for being too greedy. It is, by this time, already paying many citizens entitlements and starts to tell them how to spend their entitlement and taxes are necessary to keep them.

Someone mentioned growth and that the society would collapse if growth stopped. Well, it is true that if you are not growing you are either stagnant or shrinking. Economies can grow, be stagnant or shrink. It is governments that can't shrink and must keep economies growing and it is a terrible thing if an economy should ever stop or shrink. They can't get the revenues they need to sustain themselves from a shrinking or stagnant economy. They panic if that occurs and start doing things like increasing taxes, or providing incentives to stimulate the economy and they keep corporations going which are huge sources of revenues for them.

They also have a little tool called "inflation" that they use to try and avoid shrinking economies. Inflation encourages people to spend and not save. So it is a great tool to get people to keep production up by consuming. The economy grows, the tax base grows and government grows. This explains why hoarders are frowned upon and subject to all manner of pejorative terms when the economy shrinks. It is claimed to be unpatriotic to save under such conditions.

Anyway inflation encourages this growth and turns it into exponential growth. Who wants to spend their savings later when they can see they do not have as much purchasing power in the future as they do in the present.

I think that's enough for a start.

The history of how we get health care is people cooperating. Not this clap trap you have written.

oh and inflations is used as a tool of manipulation, you left that out.

Hoarders are frowned upon because banks need people indebted so they can continue to create money out of thin air.

When people pay off debts, they become "dead beats" because the banks can't continue to create "money" Thereby reducing their profitability and the control mechanism of working for the man, to use a slang term. Or debt servitude.

You forgot all that.

You also forgot the fact that debt is a drag on all future earnings.

Shall I go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard an interview with a young Asian student, who was a new immigrant to Canada. They asked him what he wanted to do in his new nation. He said he wanted to be a doctor. When asked why, he said "because the MONEY is real good". Do you want this idiot operating on you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you tell me how many schools of economic thought are out there, and which one you adhere to , and do you know of any others yourself.

There are several schools of economic thought.

The most prevalent is Keynesian economics. There is the Chicago school of Economics.

The one I follow most closely is Austrian economic theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The history of how we get health care is people cooperating. Not this clap trap you have written.

It is the history of all great civilizations.

oh and inflations is used as a tool of manipulation, you left that out.

I didn't leave that out. It's part of debasing the "money".

Hoarders are frowned upon because banks need people indebted so they can continue to create money out of thin air.

They aren't frowned upon by banks. they are forwned upon by governments.

When people pay off debts, they become "dead beats" because the banks can't continue to create "money" Thereby reducing their profitability and the control mechanism of working for the man, to use a slang term. Or debt servitude.

You forgot all that.

All part of debasing the currency. We do have banking laws you know. Banks are allowed to create money out of thin air. It's called fractional reserve banking. Did I mention Fractional reserve banking?

You also forgot the fact that debt is a drag on all future earnings.

Shall I go on.

Maybe our Government's 600 billion dollar debt is a drag on future earnings? What do you think?

No need to further demonstrate your understanding of economics. Somehow I get the impression you believe government plays no role at all in our economic well-being. And some vague rise and fall in capitalist greed is the major contributory factor in economic cycles - as though lack of greed is a cure for economic depression. Hmmm.. is lack of greed about spending or is it about saving.

If we spend are we being greedy consumers? If we save are we being greedy hoarders? I already know making a profit is greedy but should they spend the profit or save it?

I don't know where on the forum you demonstrated your level of economic understanding but I can sort of guess where you got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard an interview with a young Asian student, who was a new immigrant to Canada. They asked him what he wanted to do in his new nation. He said he wanted to be a doctor. When asked why, he said "because the MONEY is real good". Do you want this idiot operating on you?

Depends on what he means by "real good"!

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are several schools of economic thought.

The most prevalent is Keynesian economics. There is the Chicago school of Economics.

The one I follow most closely is Austrian economic theory.

I would disagree with the most prevalent being keynesian, The most prevalent is the chicago school.

That is my opinion.

And if one follows economies globally including our own included , the hand of the Chicago school is all over changes in our economy.

You also realize economics is not a science? It is a school of thought.

Funny about nobel winning economists and the massive failure of Long Term Capital Management.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/ltcm.htm

which of course was bailed out, buy taxpayers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business...omy/28view.html

more of that "too big to fail" bullshit.

or just the beginning of it, I should say....

Edited by kuzadd
Link to post
Share on other sites
They aren't frowned upon by banks. they are forwned upon by governments.

You are woefully mistaken. Ultimately, it is the banks that frown on the paying down of debts.

All part of debasing the currency. We do have banking laws you know. Banks are allowed to create money out of thin air. It's called fractional reserve banking. Did I mention Fractional reserve banking?

No need to, I am fully aware of the fractional reserve system. Or as I call it making money out of thin air.

Maybe our Government's 600 billion dollar debt is a drag on future earnings? What do you think?

Absolutely, and it will erode our standard of living, but the banks will be rolling in the dough. Won't they pliny? Wouldn't you think that indebtedness would make the banks very happy? I would. Which makes the banks the one that call the shots.

No need to further demonstrate your understanding of economics. Somehow I get the impression you believe government plays no role at all in our economic well-being
.

Governments play a role, but, not in "our" well being. They bow down to other masters, not the electorate.

And some vague rise and fall in capitalist greed is the major contributory factor in economic cycles - as though lack of greed is a cure for economic depression. Hmmm.. is lack of greed about spending or is it about saving.

If we spend are we being greedy consumers? If we save are we being greedy hoarders? I already know making a profit is greedy but should they spend the profit or save it?

simplistic thoughts. Do you think it is all that simple?

Edited by kuzadd
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are woefully mistaken. Ultimately, it is the banks that frown on the paying down of debts.
Re: Hoarders

Banks frown upon payment of debts? I know they like to have a certain percentage of debt out there but they do like it better when it is being paid as opposed to not being paid.

Once again that is fractional reserve banking. They play the percentages. Government prefers to have money be spent. It keeps the economy going you know :rolleyes: .

Absolutely, and it will erode our standard of living, but the banks will be rolling in the dough. Won't they pliny? Wouldn't you think that indebtedness would make the banks very happy? I would. Which makes the banks the one that call the shots.

No. I think the banks like receiving payment for their loans. whether or not they make further loans depends on several factors but the main one is risk of default.

Governments play a role, but, not in "our" well being. They bow down to other masters, not the electorate.

Now you are getting into conspiracy theory. What other masters does government have in a democracy?

The fact is, in the US, they are running the nation freehand. That they enjoy the power and that they want more isn't, in my view, debatable. Canada is a different story. The government here operates, for all intents and purposes, as freely as the US government but is the representative of the Crown and not the people. When push comes to shove the Crown rules. There is little, if any, intervention from the Crown under normal circumstances.

simplistic thoughts. Do you think it is all that simple?

It is certainly not as complicated as it pretends to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems on this board that the only ones who benefitted during this economic crisis are the ones who know little about economics. Like Kuzadd, who paid off his house and is now debt free. What recession? There's a recession? Do you think he should thank George Bush?

Did you thank George Bush?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are getting into conspiracy theory. What other masters does government have in a democracy?

yes, meeting behind closed doors and agreements such as the SPP, NAFTA, etc made without the people's knowledge or consent are sooo conspiratorial. :rolleyes:

I don't recall voting for any of that?

Yet, business is always invited, shows where the priority lies.

Not in democracy or accountability to the electorate that is for sure.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Enjoy your "democracy" lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

I know I am not as free as I could be nor am I as responsible for both myself and society. It is the government who makes laws and wishes to be responsible for both me and society.

Is there something about not understanding who is forcing who to bend to the law?

Some laws favour Women, some favour the poor, some favour the physically and mentally challenged, some favour Unions, some favour the unemployed, some favour the elderly, some favour, the young, some favour local trade, some favour allopathic medicine, some favour the aboriginal community, some favour politicians, some favour the government, some favour refugees, some favour the have-not provinces, some favour criminals, and some do indeed favour banks and corporations.

Why is it that you feel the corporate world and not people have the ear of government?

Haven't the people fought hard for all those "favours"?

It is not the poeple anymore that need to be charitable or responsible for society. It is government. We need only yell that there oughta be a law and if we yell loud enough we get one.

Yet I get the impression from you that you believe all is done for corporate expediency.

I can understand your point of view because I lived it for a few decades but perhaps more passively. The central bank and the government are not in any hidden conspiracy. They are governing a nation. they have to make plans if they happen to be in disagreement with your plans it is not a conspiracy. There are things they don't tell the public until their proper time and place and or maybe never if it would involve the security of the nation.

What you believe is very common. However, the nature of government serves it's purpose, and that is to govern. Those vying for stewardship will have their little conspiracies against their opposition - that is the game of politics. It will build an empire of itself, centralizing and consolidating it's power. As it does so it becomes more and more noticeably in conflict with the power-grubbers, and with the interests of the nation which slip to secondary consideration. The nation is no longer perceived to be a collection of individuals but a collective entity that is merely appeased for as long as both government and the citizenry can tolerate.

Tell me of the favours you receive from government. It seems to me you feel you are being short-changed and banks or corporations are getting all the benefit of government? Why would you support an agency so thoroughly when you believe you have no benefit from it?

Whether the government has been left or right over the past decades you still have more favour from government than you ever had. Left and right are obviously not a restraining factor in government growth.

I'll tell you something else. You are a lot smarter than you think you are.

I've gotta keep my posts shorter and a little more concise, I think. I do like to explain my position though and why I hold the views I do.

Ta Ta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean, "could be"? Whats that got to do with this thread anyway?

I'm sure we both know what a tangled rats nest politics is. There are deals that have to be made, concessions, compromising our values for the "greater good", as defined by someone else.

Is it wrong to distrust government? I look at it this way- when someone is in a position of authority, when they have access to secrets, and the keeping of secrets, and control the money... thats a recipe for corruption if there ever was one. And if you don't play along with the team, you'll be quickly eliminated. An honest person cannot even survive among them. An honest person, could never even make it into that level of government. Why? Because they would be politically killed off, in the constant power struggle that always exists in these places. In politics, ruthless ambition is the road to success. Underhandedness and deceitful manipulations are totally commonplace. These are the facts of life son...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...