Republican Presidential Debate

[Rostere]

You can't understand why Nordic socialized healthcare seems to be more economical than American healthcare without the underlying reasons.

1. Since you don't necessarily pay a lot to see the doctor, you can visit for preventive reasons before you are in urgent need. Needless to say, acting preventively instead of completely ad hoc saves a lot of money. If you must pay a lot to see the doctor for preventive reasons, then that encourages risky behaviour which essentially ends up in you paying a lot trying to save your life when you're already basically dead, or for continuous medicination when you have acquired some preventable medical condition. Add to this national programs of scheduled mammography, et.c..
2. The state bargains collectively for acquisition of drugs (incidentally also for alcoholic beverages...), and through testing decides what is economical, even though doctors are ultimately often free to choose themselves. There is no financial incentive whatsoever for the doctor to provide a more expensive cure, or to choose a cure which costs less but gives less. There is also no financial incentive for the collective bargainer to sell drugs to apothecaries for anything less than the lowest price possible.
3. You are allowed to choose doctor if you want, but there is always a default option in place. It won't happen that you pay a fortune in bills because you didn't choose any economical option in advance before giving birth or something like that. I've heard nightmare stories about giving birth in the US. Depending on where you live, choosing a hospital might not be easy and so there might be a free market only in theory.

Something which might be interesting here is that Sweden used to have a monopoly for selling drugs as well. This was recently sold to private actors. We note that while the consumer price index has risen by about 4% since, prices for buying drugs in stores have risen about 12% on average (averaging between different specific common drugs). On the other hand, if you don't want to buy drugs in-store, you can buy prescription-free drugs online for at the lowest about 1/4 what they used to cost before deregulation. The lesson here is that deregulation does not automatically bring lower prices in general, but it does encourage innovation, like the spread of online stores in this case. The state monopoly could technically have done the same thing and sold non-prescription drugs online for peanuts, but there was no real incentive for innovation.

[BruceVC]

You can't understand why Nordic socialized healthcare seems to be more economical than American healthcare without the underlying reasons.

1. Since you don't necessarily pay a lot to see the doctor, you can visit for preventive reasons before you are in urgent need. Needless to say, acting preventively instead of completely ad hoc saves a lot of money. If you must pay a lot to see the doctor for preventive reasons, then that encourages risky behaviour which essentially ends up in you paying a lot trying to save your life when you're already basically dead, or for continuous medicination when you have acquired some preventable medical condition. Add to this national programs of scheduled mammography, et.c..
2. The state bargains collectively for acquisition of drugs (incidentally also for alcoholic beverages...), and through testing decides what is economical, even though doctors are ultimately often free to choose themselves. There is no financial incentive whatsoever for the doctor to provide a more expensive cure, or to choose a cure which costs less but gives less. There is also no financial incentive for the collective bargainer to sell drugs to apothecaries for anything less than the lowest price possible.
3. You are allowed to choose doctor if you want, but there is always a default option in place. It won't happen that you pay a fortune in bills because you didn't choose any economical option in advance before giving birth or something like that. I've heard nightmare stories about giving birth in the US. Depending on where you live, choosing a hospital might not be easy and so there might be a free market only in theory.

Something which might be interesting here is that Sweden used to have a monopoly for selling drugs as well. This was recently sold to private actors. We note that while the consumer price index has risen by about 4% since, prices for buying drugs in stores have risen about 12% on average (averaging between different specific common drugs). On the other hand, if you don't want to buy drugs in-store, you can buy prescription-free drugs online for at the lowest about 1/4 what they used to cost before deregulation. The lesson here is that deregulation does not automatically bring lower prices in general, but it does encourage innovation, like the spread of online stores in this case. The state monopoly could technically have done the same thing and sold non-prescription drugs online for peanuts, but there was no real incentive for innovation.

I really like the socialist\capitalist  government  hybrid model that the Scandinavian countries have successfully implemented

 

It permeates all your government institutions like education and healthcare, I know nothing is perfect but I still think it offers citizens the most effective system to uplift themselves economically

 

It does require a high employment rate so everyone can contribute  and a relatively high tax rate which I would be prepared to pay in a country like South Africa but we have far too many people who are unemployed or live on social grants....so I doubt we could implement it as the tax base is too low to fund effective government services like Sweden has

 

But I'm sure other first world countries could follow Scandinavian economic model? 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hence my proposal to separate US into a blue part and a red part. The blue part could then go on to implement whatever version of Socialism they prefer, and leave us alone.

[Guard Dog]

I suspect that very thing may happen at some point WoD.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

[Namutree]

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

That about sums it up.

[Rostere]

The point with my post was to introduce more concrete notions about what "socialized healthcare" means in practice. It's kind of annoying to see people who have no idea what "socialized healthcare" even means to argue about the pros and cons only based on their ideas about how nice things are in different countries.

[Hurlshort]

Realistically, very few states could even handle breaking away from the US.  Texas could do it, as could California.  But a lot of those red states rely way too heavily on Federal funding.

 

[ShadySands]

I'd be interested in an updated graph since that one is quite old and Colorado is probably a blue state at this point with some red strongholds scattered about in the more rural areas

[Hurlshort]

Ah my bad, I was looking at this one from 2008, but I didn't think it was as clear:

 

 

edit:  What the heck is happening in New Mexico?

Edited December 1, 2015 by Hurlshot

[ShadySands]

Thanks!

[BruceVC]

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

WOD if you could chose to kick-out any states from the USA who would they be?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Then who decides what the governments scope is?

 

 

The voters.  Right now we get to decide what the scope is on local and state levels, but we have very little say in the Federal level.  

 

Incorrect Hurlshot. Actually the United States Constitution did that. It laid out in clear detail the responsibilities and LIMITS of the federal government and specifically assigned everything NOT included in it's text to the STATE and the PEOPLE. Any questions Calax? If so please read Amendments 9 and 10 of the aforementioned document.

 

Oh, by the way Calax, the words healthcare and education do not appear in any of the seven articles or twenty seven amendments.

 

That's true, they don't. But then the Constitution also mentions slavery in Article's I IV and V, and yet we've gone though and changed it. 

 

Nor does the constitution mention an Air Force, a Federal Police force, or Occupational Health and Safety. Does this also mean that we should remove the USAF, FBI and OSHA and leave it to the states to enforce those rules?

 

I started writing a reply to this and had a serious case of Deja vu. Then did some searching. You, Tsuga and I spent 3 whole pages of posts talking about this EXACT thing on a threat called "2012 Election Aftermath". You and I discussed it again in a thread called "Greece, the EU and why we can't have nice things", and again in "armed forces lose tuition benefits" although we bounced around it on that one. You, Hurlshot, Enoch & I hit this hard on the education topic in a thread called "First Failed State" back in 2009. And I pontificated on it at length in a thread called "Calling Guard dog and others in 2010"

 

So, in other words f--k it. I'm not going to word vomit 1k to 2k words on a reply you've been reading and rereading from me for the last seven or more years. I haven't convinced you yet and vise versa.  We don't agree on it, we're not going to and that's that. Nothing wrong with it.

 

That's why i'd rather talk sports than politics these days. We've been having political discussions on this board since I wandered in back in 2004 and while they are usually entertaining the needle seldom moves much because we're all older, educated and set in our ways. And stubborn.

 

Of course that's not to say change is impossible. Enoch once pointed out a huge flaw in my reasoning on capital punishment so much that I used to support it but now I'm opposed to it. And of course debating politics is usually fun but in this case I'm just finding the repetition tiresome. 

[Hurlshort]

Heh, I went back and read over that First Failed State thread, crazy!  I think I've become dumber over the years, my posts were better back then.  

 

That is an awesome thread to read because California has recovered very well.  It's also a bit sad to see posts from Kelverin and Killian.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/53366-first-failed-state/?hl=%2Bfirst+%2Bfailed+%2Bstate

Edited December 1, 2015 by Hurlshot

[BruceVC]

Heh, I went back and read over that First Failed State thread, crazy!  I think I've become dumber over the years, my posts were better back then.  

 

That is an awesome thread to read because California has recovered very well.  It's also a bit sad to see posts from Kelverin and Killian.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/53366-first-failed-state/?hl=%2Bfirst+%2Bfailed+%2Bstate

 But Hurlshot you have new members like me ....isn't that better ?

[Guard Dog]

Heh, I went back and read over that First Failed State thread, crazy!  I think I've become dumber over the years, my posts were better back then.  

 

That is an awesome thread to read because California has recovered very well.  It's also a bit sad to see posts from Kelverin and Killian.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/53366-first-failed-state/?hl=%2Bfirst+%2Bfailed+%2Bstate

Check out this exchange I had with Calax five years ago! I've been talking politics with that guy for a LONG time now! http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56180&p=1069009

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

WOD if you could chose to kick-out any states from the USA who would they be?

 

The blue states in the map above, but mostly California and New York, that's where all the evil comes from. http://www.newgeography.com/content/005110-jerry-brown-s-insufferable-green-piety

 

"These fans miss a big part of the reality. Outsiders think of California as a prosperous place that mints billionaires, but overall the state’s economic recovery has done little for many, if not most, state residents. Even with the boom in Silicon Valley, roughly one in three Californians live check to check, the state has higher rate of poverty than Mississippi, as well as one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Among the emerging Latino majority, a prime Brown constituency, the state’s cost-adjusted poverty rate is more than 33 percent, compared to just 22.7 percent in Texas, a state often derided as unenlightened and cruel."

 

"Of course, there’s a long history of such bifurcated society, where people tend to stay in their class and the poor depend largely on handouts from their spiritual “betters.” It’s called feudalism."

 

So may be KP was right about feudalism.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

WOD if you could chose to kick-out any states from the USA who would they be?

 

The blue states in the map above, but mostly California and New York, that's where all the evil comes from.

 

No way. Massachusetts. They already can't speak the language, It's "door" dammit, not "duwar"!    

Edited December 2, 2015 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

 

 

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

WOD if you could chose to kick-out any states from the USA who would they be?

 

The blue states in the map above, but mostly California and New York, that's where all the evil comes from. http://www.newgeography.com/content/005110-jerry-brown-s-insufferable-green-piety

 

"These fans miss a big part of the reality. Outsiders think of California as a prosperous place that mints billionaires, but overall the state’s economic recovery has done little for many, if not most, state residents. Even with the boom in Silicon Valley, roughly one in three Californians live check to check, the state has higher rate of poverty than Mississippi, as well as one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Among the emerging Latino majority, a prime Brown constituency, the state’s cost-adjusted poverty rate is more than 33 percent, compared to just 22.7 percent in Texas, a state often derided as unenlightened and cruel."

 

"Of course, there’s a long history of such bifurcated society, where people tend to stay in their class and the poor depend largely on handouts from their spiritual “betters.” It’s called feudalism."

 

So may be KP was right about feudalism.

 

...

 

You do realize that the reason that Brown is railing against Global warming is that his state is the one that is most heavily effected by it within the union, in the most easily noticeable way too.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1920x1080_autoletterbox/public/earth20140225-full_0.jpg?itok=4gqe55FO

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nah, they'll never let us go, they'll have the whole thing and still have it their way.

WOD if you could chose to kick-out any states from the USA who would they be?

 

The blue states in the map above, but mostly California and New York, that's where all the evil comes from. http://www.newgeography.com/content/005110-jerry-brown-s-insufferable-green-piety

 

"These fans miss a big part of the reality. Outsiders think of California as a prosperous place that mints billionaires, but overall the state’s economic recovery has done little for many, if not most, state residents. Even with the boom in Silicon Valley, roughly one in three Californians live check to check, the state has higher rate of poverty than Mississippi, as well as one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Among the emerging Latino majority, a prime Brown constituency, the state’s cost-adjusted poverty rate is more than 33 percent, compared to just 22.7 percent in Texas, a state often derided as unenlightened and cruel."

 

"Of course, there’s a long history of such bifurcated society, where people tend to stay in their class and the poor depend largely on handouts from their spiritual “betters.” It’s called feudalism."

 

So may be KP was right about feudalism.

 

Shame WOD ....but won't you miss the erudite and liberal views of  your Californian brethren    

 

Funny enough its very healthy and expected to have a level of rivalry between states, you are made stronger by your differences 

[Wrath of Dagon]

You do realize that the reason that Brown is railing against Global warming is that his state is the one that is most heavily effected by it within the union, in the most easily noticeable way too.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1920x1080_autoletterbox/public/earth20140225-full_0.jpg?itok=4gqe55FO

Because there's never been a draught before global warming. Texas had a real bad draught for 7 years in the 50's. California would've been better off working on water projects instead of worrying about fantasy crap.

[Hurlshort]

 

Heh, I went back and read over that First Failed State thread, crazy!  I think I've become dumber over the years, my posts were better back then.  

 

That is an awesome thread to read because California has recovered very well.  It's also a bit sad to see posts from Kelverin and Killian.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/53366-first-failed-state/?hl=%2Bfirst+%2Bfailed+%2Bstate

Check out this exchange I had with Calax five years ago! I've been talking politics with that guy for a LONG time now! http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56180&p=1069009

 

 

Ah, but the next 5 years will be really interesting, as Calax transitions out of college and into the role of a 30-something working class stiff.  

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Heh, I went back and read over that First Failed State thread, crazy!  I think I've become dumber over the years, my posts were better back then.  

 

That is an awesome thread to read because California has recovered very well.  It's also a bit sad to see posts from Kelverin and Killian.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/53366-first-failed-state/?hl=%2Bfirst+%2Bfailed+%2Bstate

Check out this exchange I had with Calax five years ago! I've been talking politics with that guy for a LONG time now! http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56180&p=1069009

 

 

Ah, but the next 5 years will be really interesting, as Calax transitions out of college and into the role of a 30-something working class stiff.  

 

Most folks find they are not such a big fan of high tax rates when they actually start paying them!

[Calax]

 

You do realize that the reason that Brown is railing against Global warming is that his state is the one that is most heavily effected by it within the union, in the most easily noticeable way too.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/1920x1080_autoletterbox/public/earth20140225-full_0.jpg?itok=4gqe55FO

Because there's never been a draught before global warming. Texas had a real bad draught for 7 years in the 50's. California would've been better off working on water projects instead of worrying about fantasy crap.

 

There's "drought" and "5 years of less than 5 inches of rain". And it isn't just limited to California, but Cali's feeling the brunt of it.

 

and GD, if my parents could pay taxes with a six figure income, and raise two kids without complaining, so can I.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Calax

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If your parents raised two kids without complaining I'd believe they were masochistic.