Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

The only true and accurate test of an idea is one evaluating the result of actual implementation and application – not one merely expressing or citing criticisms based on theory already disproven by history.

 

Indie

A lot of the things I support and you seem to oppose have been tried and copied in one form or another - such as public healthcare systems that have worked out to be cheaper and more efficient that the US system.

When the US was doing well economically and there was a huge rise in the number of the middle class it was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas. During that period the top tax rate was much higher (94% 1945 70% 1970) and the national debt was reduced from the war time high of 117% of GDP to a reasonable 32.5% in 81.

But in the thirty odd years of free market/neoliberal ideas there was a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen. While the policies pursued have also caused a ballooning of the national debt, brought about a financial crash and hollowed out manufacturing and brought about a social and political system where wealth have great (and in the opinion too much) power and influence.

 

Why do you continually interchange wealth and income? I've experienced a wealth increase even during times of an income decrease.

Assume the government was to confiscate the entire wealth of the so called 2%, and make it illegal to receive an income greater than say $250 thousand per year. Would you expect that to have a positive or negative effect on the economy?

 

assuming that the US government was somehow not owned by corporations

 

Hey Balbus, I'm curious what your take on healthcare in the UK is. It's obviously not without its flaws but overall, do you think it's mostly good or mostly bad?

 

I'm all for cheaper (less expensive), and more efficient health care, but only as a private sector patient/doctor system, without government involvement or intervention between the patient and the doctor.

 

Bump ?

 

Its getting worse. A few years ago i learned that my senators spouse (presidents too) was on the board of multiple corporations, and the million dollars in salaries they received, i knew that our democratic representation, as I once knew it was over. Whose best interest is the senator protecting or serving? And why would a corporation want a board memeber with toddlers at home. i dont think she had international commerce experience. Maybe she was qualified? But isnt that a blatant conflict of interest? I know this elected senator became a millionare with that new income. Seems like there should be laws against this.
I know that most jobs I worked I could not hire my relatives or source their companies without a lot of oversight.

 

Sorry voyage missed this

No system is without it flaws.

Well it’s very popular amongst everyone except neoliberal types and those rich enough not to have to use it directly (indirectly many private services are underpinned by the NHS).

My family and I have used it on several occasions and we’ve had little to complain about. There is a lot of peace of mind knowing it is there, especially when you have a child.

 

Did not know about the private/NHS thing.

Just asking because in the single payer debate here people sometimes point to the UK system or Canada and say how horrible it is. I like hearing from people with actual experience.
I knew a nurse in Ottawa that didn't have kind things to say about the system there, but I also think she was the type that found fault with everything.

So you'd say more good than bad overall?

 

The system in the UK sounds like here.

WE have medicare we can see dr's etc and not have to pay, even surgeries etc. But they are done under the public banner and in saying that there can be 6 month wait lists for procedures and other things like that.

But

There is also the option here to pay health insurance, where you would get benefits, of private hosp rooms, procedures can have no wait time this way as well.

 

http://www.nursingtimes.net/a-local-public-private-partnership/199624.article#

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ivatefinanceinitiative/PFIguidance/DH_4015889

 

oops. sorry. posted in wrong thread. Stoned again. LOL

 

Each question posed here appears to be answered with the attitude of "Why should those who pay be given more or better care than those who do not." OR "Everyone is entitled to have their needs fulfilled, and only government is powerful enough to assure that the 'needs' of society are distributed fairly and equally."

 

Too true. Kinda sad, really -- that we've come to that.

 

voyage

I could complain, but as I’ve said no system is without fault, but yes overall it is more good than bad.

As I say it means people here don’t have to fear if they or one of their family get ill.

 

Oh indie

Why do you continue to restate stuff you know perfectly well has already been covered and you have been unable to defend from criticism?

This is that silly ‘envy’ argument that has been shot down a thousands times already.

If people want to pay to go private that’s up to them, but the thing is that they might not get more or better care than someone in the NHS, they might get plusher surroundings and better food (although I remember one visit to a NHS hospital where I went back not only for seconds but thirds it was so nice) BUT the actual treatment for what ails you is very likely to be exactly the same.

It depends what you mean by need?

We all know already that in your model of society you’d be happy for people who through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship to suffer greatly or die of want.

But as I’ve asked is that a rational or reasonable model for a society? You say yes but so far you have put up no rational or reasonable arguemet for saying why beyond saying you’d like it that way.

To repeat for what seems like the millionth time - , I don’t think total fairness and equality is possible, but I do think societies should be run in the best interests of everyone rather than just a few (as you seem to). I’ve also argued that there needs to be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of everyone else.

I would like to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society.

And that is why I can’t understand your thinking or that of other right wing libertarians and neoliberals, because they and you do seem to want to live in a worse society.

 

Sorta like what I explained the system was like here!!

 

Bal,

"but I do think societies should be run"

I think that says it all.

 

Indie

But i do think societies should be run in the best interests of everyone rather than just a few (as you seem to). I’ve also argued that there needs to be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of everyone else.

And that is the good thing about something like the NHS.

Now do you have a rational and reasonable argument to present?