Socialism in Stages

[Ignignokt]

i love irony.

link?

[Ignignokt]

i've never seen the mod one before either.

Sarcastic reply, but it does speak volumes.

[rjv]

link?

a link to what? a dictionary ?

[ChumpDumper]

the cancer mortality rates compared to the US and britian are an indication.

An indication of a failed state? If the US rate was higher than that of another country that had a public health service, would you consider the US a failed state?

What is you definition of all this, anyway? A failed state? You want us to find an Industrialized state that was driven into the ground and is in collapse only because of healthcare? Is that what the OP said?

The OP says that every country that has socialist programs is destined to fail, or at least there is some kind of tipping point where it must.

Where is that point? I have difficulty thinking of a country that doesn't have at least a mixed economy. According to the OP, they are all at different stages of failure.

[ChumpDumper]

gtown, if it was found that the best rate of cancer survival would be found under a government that forces employers to give a rather generous health package to any employee working over 20 hours a week -- would that then be the model you would want to emulate?

[Ignignokt]

gtown, if it was found that the best rate of cancer survival would be found under a government that forces employers to give a rather generous health package to any employee working over 20 hours a week -- would that then be the model you would want to emulate?

But you have one in britian that has a bad track record. While we're at it, if it was found that countries who have absolutely no gay marriage have a low divorce rate would that be a model you would want to emulate?

[ChumpDumper]

But you have one in britian that has a bad track record.

The plan I described is nothing like that of Great Britain.

[Ignignokt]

An indication of a failed state? If the US rate was higher than that of another country that had a public health service, would you consider the US a failed state?


The OP says that every country that has socialist programs is destined to fail, or at least there is some kind of tipping point where it must.

Where is that point? I have difficulty thinking of a country that doesn't have at least a mixed economy. According to the OP, they are all at different stages of failure.

Right now that has more to do with the current crisis in finance, but before all this countries like Britian were running massive debt like us and having problems finding people to work in the field of medicine, amongst other things like long waiting lines, and denied practice because of lack of resource.

We're also a mixed govt/economy in a sense because of the NEw Deal, and we've been failing in many aspects of trying to relieve our debt.

Now you want to further compound the problem by adding a massive govt program?

[Ignignokt]

The plan I described is nothing like that of Great Britain.

I would like to see the country you speak of.

[ChumpDumper]

Right now that has more to do with the current crisis in finance, but before all this countries like Britian were running massive debt like us and having problems finding people to work in the field of medicine, amongst other things like long waiting lines, and denied practice because of lack of resource.

We're also a mixed economy in a sense because of the NEw Deal, and we've been failing in many aspects of trying to relieve our debt.

Now you want to further compound the problem by adding a massive govt program?

So any country with a public health system is destined to fail?

I'm really trying to get a handle on what people here believe.

[Ignignokt]

So any country with a public health system is destined to fail?

I'm really trying to get a handle on what people here believe.

that's a dumb question. There could theoritically be country with a public health system, with no need to pay for public schooling, a military, or give any foreign aid, and have very few govt programs, and the only big one would be public health. This country dealing with only one huge govt program most likely will not be crippled.

That's not us.

We have a huge military budget, huge social budget and heavy debt, it will lead us to failure maybe not in the sense that we become post war Germany circa 1919, but severely weakened.

[Ignignokt]

If the US didn't have any large govt programs to fund and no debt, and we had a surplus, having a public health system would not hurt us.

We could have chocolate rivers, toffee roads, and gingerbread houses while we're at it.

[ChumpDumper]

I would like to see the country you speak of.

It is the United States -- more specifically a state in the United States.

It has the highest cancer survival rates, the highest longevity, the second lowest premiums and the lowest Medicare costs in the country.

I am not saying it is by any means perfect, but I'm showing that there are alternatives out there that have nothing to do with a single-payer system. Frankly, bringing up Britain and Canada is now barely relevant to the kinds of reform being discussed in the US.

[ChumpDumper]

If the US didn't have any large govt programs to fund and no debt, and we had a surplus, having a public health system would not hurt us.

We could have chocolate rivers, toffee roads, and gingerbread houses while we're at it.

So public health could be an option to you if other spending and debt were addressed?

Interesting.

[Ignignokt]

It is the United States -- more specifically a state in the United States.

It has the highest cancer survival rates, the highest longevity, the second lowest premiums and the lowest Medicare costs in the country.

I am not saying it is by any means perfect, but I'm showing that there are alternatives out there that have nothing to do with a single-payer system. Frankly, bringing up Britain and Canada is now barely relevant to the kinds of reform being discussed in the US.

Is this massachusets?

A state is different from a nation.

A state can afford to pay for it's own healthcare. But also, i'd like to point out that because the rest of the country still operates on a private system, Massachussets doesn't suffer the same consequences that england does.

basically Massachussets is enjoying the public healthcare on the back of a Private Health care economy.

[Ignignokt]

So public health could be an option to you if other spending and debt were addressed?

Interesting.

Or you could just have low debt, a great economy and let the private sector absorb health cost, and still have innovation. having a majority of americans covered because of a good market is a better option.

[ChumpDumper]

Is this massachusets?

A state is different from a nation.

A state can afford to pay for it's own healthcare. But also, i'd like to point out that because the rest of the country still operates on a private system, Massachussets doesn't suffer the same consequences that england does.

basically Massachussets is enjoying the public healthcare on the back of a Private Health care economy.

It's not Massachusetts, and there is not a public system there. I'm just familiarizing myself with it at present.

I was just working with your metrics. The results seem pretty impressive according to those metrics. I'm willing to entertain options.

[PixelPusher]

There's no leap of logic. If you can prove there's a leap of logic, you're debunking the work of guys who won the Nobel Prize. You can be instantly rich and famous, so what are you waiting for? There are terms in which you can disagree, but I doubt it's a good idea to pursuit the argument of formal mistakes.

Dan Oliver, Jr. did not recieve a Nobel Prize for this or any other conservative screed.

[mogrovejo]

Dan Oliver, Jr. did not recieve a Nobel Prize for this or any other conservative screed.

Well, I think you're too focused on the author of the article and not on the subject of the economic calculation problem.

[PixelPusher]

Since mogrovejo and the NRO hack he linked to think merely name dropping Austrian free market economists qualifies as an "argument"...

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,” – The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 9).

[mogrovejo]

Yeah, Hayek was not opposed to "safety net" programs. Neither am I. Mises was, Hayek was in the Mount Pelerin meeting where he said that famous tirade "You're all a bunch of socialists".

That said, I think there's a good chance that you're misunderstanding Hayek if you're reading that paragraph out of context. In that section Hayek enumerates the different levels of securities that people can get from the state and how they disrupt their freedoms (the chapter is en led Freedom and Security or something like that). Hayek was a big proponent of voluntary, spontaneous, safety nets. After that paragraph he explains why you can't expect the government to provide a large, inclusive, safety net - he cites the minimum wage, for example.

[mogrovejo]

I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

Krugman gets it.

[Winehole23]

Everyone gets it, you sententious knob. En lement programs get bigger and more expensive over time. You don't have to be Krugman or Mogrovejo to get it.

[Winehole23]

Or that reform starts out modestly. This is more gnomic prose, mogrovejo. I have a hard time seeing what you're so proud of saying here. These are commonplaces.

[mogrovejo]

As I say, you refuse to discuss ideas and all you do is personal baiting.