Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Why the Government Needs to Stay Out of Medicine
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water
utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see
what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like,
using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the
U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables, thanks
to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com
and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the
government can't do anything right.
Comments
Also, it's not mine, I got it from the INTERNET, but I liked it so much that I was compelled to share it with you wonderful people
I can't find a g or an o or a v in "medicine".
^
That was so forced.
On topic, keep in mind that every other industrialized nation has even more than this.
(inb4 some anal asshole brings up the North & South America vs. U.S. distinction.)
Natch.
Search Joe Republican, that' the version I heard about first.
Governments have done an extremely good job improving our lives. But they do that by deliberately running huge deficits. I would argue that the problem with big government is not that it doesn't work, but that it is not sustainable.
I saw an interesting arguement related to this.
For any given society there's a certain "optimum level" of regulation it can afford.
For example, a dirt - poor 3rd world country can't afford to ask small businesses to pay all sorts of licencing fees - doing so would result in most small businesses going underground or out of business.
For a prosperous society with terrible workplace safety, enforcing safety rules might actually improve the economy as employers value their workers more, etc. But eventually, contiinuing to add regulations will run into diminishing returns.
The question, then, is "what is the optimum for us?" Have we already reached it? Has the current econo9mic reality altered what the optimum is?
But they do that by deliberately running huge deficits. I would argue that the problem with big government is not that it doesn't work, but that it is not sustainable.
blah blah government bonds are still stable blah blah low interest rates blah blah blah
^^
The Nordic governments are pretty big yet they are more solvent than Uncle Sam
HURR HURR HURR SO ORIGINAL AND TOPICAL DO NOT STEAL
The United States has had federally mandated health care coverage since the late 1700s... for Indian reservations. And guess what? It sucks. The money runs out every year at around June.
If you want state-owned insurance programs, pass them in your own state, like Massachusetts did. Don't try to get it passed on a national level, because I don't want my money being taken to give some chucklehead in New York breast exams. If I'm going to give my money to health care, it'll go to people I have a decent chance of meeting in my lifetime.
Why did I think Tnu made this
@Hatter,
So you enjoy having the most expensive healthcare in the Western World which is also one of the shittest in the Western World?
Heres an thought for you, France has the best healthcare in the world yet, as a % of GDP, it spends less than the US does.
Courtesy link.
And because it works in the 20th most populated country in the world, with a military costing 40 billion Euros, it will work in the 3rd most populated country with the 549 billion dollar military. Right.
Whats the military budget got to do with anything?
Whale, in adult society there's this thing called "money," which is an economy's way of dealing with scarcity. Money is the way we buy things. If we don't have money, we can't buy as many things. Right now, we're paying for a really big thing, so we can't pay for another big thing, because we're putting a lot of our money into that big thing.
Did you read my post?
I said the French spent LESS in terms of % of GDP on Healthcare than the United States and the French healthcare system WAS BETTER.
And they're also free of the burden of protecting Japan, South Korea, Poland, Israel and all those other countries that no one seems to remember when they're talking about diverting money to health care programs.
You've obviously missing the point to let me explain it to you.
Government healthcare or UHC costs less to run than what is happening in the United States therefore some money could be diverted from healthcare into other areas. This is mainly because of the economics of scale that can't be done in the US for whatever reason.
This pointless derail about military spending is irritating because its meaningless. However, the French do have to defend Poland and a bunch of countries in the Francophone.
Speaking as a former Francophone, I don't think I'll be able to house an entire war zone inside my body.
*La Francophonie then, but at least argue against my points that the invisible hand works for healthcare or something.
Hatter.
Healthcare reform would actually mean the government would be spending LESS on healthcare. Less BY NUMBER. We already spend more on it than France, and throwing out our military budget is a bullshit red herring.
>mfw when our gubbermint is trying to privatize the fuck out of the healthcare system.
>mfw when arguments being used for it are 'left wing nanny state' and 'immigrants sapping mah welfare'.
>mfw when chainsaw up the butt isn't a legitimate form of political protest.
> If you want state-owned insurance programs, pass them in your own state, like Massachusetts did. Don't try to get it passed on a national level, because I don't want my money being taken to give some chucklehead in New York breast exams. If I'm going to give my money to health care, it'll go to people I have a decent chance of meeting in my lifetime.
And exactly how is a chucklehead in your state (which is not New York) getting breast exams better than a chucklehead in New York getting breast exams?
> And they're also free of the burden of protecting Japan, South Korea, Poland, Israel and all those other countries that no one seems to remember when they're talking about diverting money to health care programs.
Perhaps we should reconsider these things, then.
Hatter, could you try being less of a condescending dick?
Anyway; high taxes with more public services are always a good thing. Expecting people to pay for medicine is barbaric and maybe if the US spent more time worrying about it's citizens and less time starting wars they wouldn't need to spend so much on the military.
I love the "USA has to protect other nations" argument. It's a point refuted a thousand times where the refutation is a simple "They never asked for it." I'm sure South America is thrilled with the USA being such a noble guardian of the realms.
"Whale, in adult society there's this thing called "money," which is an economy's way of dealing with scarcity."
"Hatter, could you try being less of a condescending dick? "
Calm down, people.
It's not that easy, man.
I'm not saying that the US intervention is entirely a good thing...but well, were you here on 2000 and seeing how shit was going down on the south, you'd definetly wouldn't have said that.
Like everything, it has to be taken on a case-to-case basis, but whenever I see the policeman of the world argument, it tends to reflect ignorance in regards to the way the US has treated a lot of countries, particularly the support for US-friendly dictatorships. A lot of US intervention certainly isn't for the good of other nations.
"No one asked" was definitely an overgeneralization though.