|
Scarequotes "fairness" and cost to the patient are obviously biased, irrelevant factors in determining the effectiveness of a health care system. Well that's where I stopped reading. I'm loving awful at this, someone else make dumb jokes about the rest while I go tend to my blood pressure
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
quote:Many Americans are so fed up with the American healthcare system, that what seems too many to be the most sensible thing to do is to follow the European model and nationalize the entire industry. With a quick glance at some snapshot statistics, it doesn’t seem to be a crazy idea. After all, according to the WHO (World Health Organization), the United States ranks only no. 37 in quality of healthcare worldwide. Look a little closer though, and one will find that this data does not tell the whole, unbiased story. So basically, "these statistics don't conform to our ideology, therefore we will unskew them".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Okay that's really weird, it seems like all of the people in this thread who grew up well-to-do had a socialism or communism phase whereas all of the people who grew up poor had a libertarianism phase. Somethingawful posters held contrarian views in adolescence? Does not seem all that weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:So basically, "these statistics don't conform to our ideology, therefore we will unskew them". See also last week, where they didn't like how GDP went into the shitter when governments tried austerity, so they came up with a new measure that was just "GDP, but we don't count government expenditures." And then that new statistic still didn't say what they wanted it to, so they came up with a new new statistic that amounted to "GDP, but you subtract government spending instead of adding it." And even then, they didn't show how their numbers looked outside of their "primitive island" test metaphor. The actual well-being of the citizenry in the various cases was literally never even mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
This reminds me of an argument a good friend of mine from Canada had with this insane an-cap from Brazil. My friend was talking about how effective Medicare was and how people in Canada didn't die from easily preventable poo poo, and the Brazilian an-cap was bitching about how he was "trying to claim a monopoly on virtue". My buddy then cited stats about healthcare costs vis a vis Canada and the U.S. and replied, "well I also seem to have a monopoly on real world success." Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
I not only have a monopoly on Virtue I have also built a hotel on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Scarequotes "fairness" and cost to the patient are obviously biased, irrelevant factors in determining the effectiveness of a health care system. Well of course. If we include factors like "the ability to actually access healthcare in the first place" then you're going to get all kinds of crazy pro-government responses, which is objectively wrong. There must be a problem with the data somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
God, reading that article on healthcare makes me think of one of my biggest criticisms with Libertarians. Their whole argument can be boiled down to "There are these flaws with our current implementation with the system, ergo, these flaws are inherent to the system." Yes, getting rid of medical licensing will increase the number of medical providers almost instantly, but of course, nobody wants to pay attention to the fact that you will also increase the numbers of medical malpractice. Licensing exists to ensure that people in the medical field have a certain baseline of knowledge required to practice medicine. So that way, when you come in with your tummy ache, I don't get out my phrenology chart and then give you some homeopathic treatment and then send you on your way while your stomach bleeds. It also provides a means to get rid of bad doctors and doctors who's skills are failing. But nope! Freedom they say! It's absurd. It's as if they don't realize that you don't have the right to inflict harm on another human being because you are incompetent and that a local government agency is right to take means to prevent harm from occurring by requiring people show that they could help people in need. Which is a total contradiction to Libertarian philosophy. Ergo, Libertarianism is false.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Hey if I want to get my medical care from my hairdresser it's my God-given right! I want to take care of getting a haircut, a root canal, and a physical all in one go all in the same place and Cheryl is an expert on hair so she's obviously smart enough to understand literally everything. I have this one tooth that needs pulled and removing an unwanted tooth is the same as removing unwanted hair, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
I need to be anesthetized for my haircuts. Nothing else will do!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Yeah the reconstruction amendments were passed at bayonet-point, that makes them bad and we should totally get rid of them all, thanks Libertarians. Nothing says Liberty like re-legalizing slavery!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah the reconstruction amendments were passed at bayonet-point, that makes them bad and we should totally get rid of them all, thanks Libertarians. Voluntary slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
It's always nice when Republicans don't bother pretending they give a drat about helping people:quote:“I don’t think conservative health care reform is about, we’re going to compete with [the left] in terms of how many people we see have an [insurance] care,” he said. “That not the ultimate goal.” http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/healthcare-jindal-ready-leave-americans-behind
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Also, why does the most freedom-y state in the country, Texas, have the worst uninsured rate? With low taxes, denying medicaid expansion and tort reform, you'd think everyone would be covered thanks to the power of the FREE MARKET.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:[Very long list of citations needed]. I know this is a popular and easy thing to say, but it's a real task to prove. I agree that poor people don't agitate very effectively in their own interests and that a lot of that stems from lovely education etc. but neglect and indifference are much easier to prove than design. I'm going to try and put together an example of the system in action, and point to specific actors in it. Whether or not they cynically, "know" they're doing it or not is really irrelevant, as it's assured that some people do. Let's start with the example of the Military. Rationally, the desire to kill and die for one's country in defense is a noble thing. Or even of fighting to eliminate an active threat to your people. But politicians make their money by providing palatable reasons that a tiny nation, thousands of miles away needs to be bombed, invaded or destroyed. "They hate us for our freedom" cries the newsman. We're trying to stop the spread of "communism" *cue dark storm clouds and ominous music* warns the politician. But what of the men and women who will fight in this war? Why kill and die for it? Well for Glory! For Freedom! For Democracy! But not one of those things are true. They're all pretty lies we tell our service men and women to make them feel better about having their lives thrown away for numbers on some douche's spreadsheet. And why tell them those lies? What do we possibly gain from participating in this constant worship and false praise of absolutely every war and action that the armed forces take? Nothing. But if you don't? Suddenly you "hate the troops!". Suddenly, you're a smelly hippy who should go back to their weed and commie universities. The system attacks you for speaking out. The newsmen and the politicians call you a traitor. They call you a communist. Or a muslim. Or whatever the new underclass boogeyman is of the day. You don't want to be "Other" do you? You want to be a "Real American"(Or whatever country) like everyone else, I'm sure. Now eat your Freedom fries and put on your American flag lapel pin. Don't want "everyone" to think you're a commie sympathizing, muslim, Kenyan-born traitor who loves the terrorists, now do you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also, why does the most freedom-y state in the country, Texas, have the worst uninsured rate? With low taxes, denying medicaid expansion and tort reform, you'd think everyone would be covered thanks to the power of the FREE MARKET. Obviously Texas just has an exceptional amount of lazy people that don't want to earn medical care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Obviously Texas just has an exceptional amount of lazy people that don't want to earn medical care. They're not lazy, they just made the rational choice to not get health insurance. This is the best choice for them, which we know because they made it and they will always choose optimally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Karia posted:They're not lazy, they just made the rational choice to not get health insurance. This is the best choice for them, which we know because they made it and they will always choose optimally. Because Humans Act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
if humans acted rationally nobody would ever play hot hands
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:08
|
|
Chwoka posted:if humans acted rationally nobody would ever play
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Humans act therefore *fart*
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Flatus ergo sum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Also, curious: do libertarians believe recessions can occur in libertopia? I remember watching a debate with Peter Schiff where he keeps blaming most economic problems on the Fed and said the best time in the U.S.' history was from the 1870s to the early 1900s (seems he somehow was able to catch himself not including that whole slavery period at the last second), but we've had tons of recessions, and even Depressions (!) during those times so I'm wondering what the hell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also, curious: do libertarians believe recessions can occur in libertopia? I remember watching a debate with Peter Schiff where he keeps blaming most economic problems on the Fed and said the best time in the U.S.' history was from the 1870s to the early 1900s (seems he somehow was able to catch himself not including that whole slavery period at the last second), but we've had tons of recessions, and even Depressions (!) during those times so I'm wondering what the hell? This came up earlier in the thread. For starters I'll drop this on you: Austrian Business Cycle posted:Proponents believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation result in a volatile and unstable imbalance between "real" saving and investment.[4] According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way: "Artificially" low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This leads to an increase in capital spending fuelled by newly issued bank credit ("fiduciary media"). The credit-sourced boom results in widespread malinvestment due to mispricing of credit. A correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when the credit creation has run its course. Then credit and money supply growth slows - or even contracts - causing resources to be reallocated back towards their former uses. While you don't necessarily require a federal bank to have these artificially low interest rates, the Fed is the predominant example of government interference affecting interest rates since its primary job is to direct the flow of the economy by manipulating them. In the years before the Fed the libertarians will simply point to... well, loving anything really. The government built roads, which hosed up the interest rates which caused a recession. The government fought a war, which hosed up the interest rates and caused a recession. The president picked his nose which... yeah you get it. The Austrian Business Cycle is best explained by way of a drinking metaphor. When interest rates are artificially low there is a lot of booze around and everyone gets poo poo gently caress drunk off their asses. Eventually the booze runs out and you wake up with an enormous hangover which you have to suffer through (in the forms of millions of unemployed and starving people) rather than take some of the hair of the dog that bit you in the form of government stimulus. Without the government interferening in markets (which are perfect) interest rates would be naturally set and thus there would never be any recessions. Now its worth mentioning while I'm at it that if you think that this doesn't accurately reflect most 20th century recessions, you'd be right. The 2008 recession for example was not caused by an abundance of cheap credit. That was absolutely a contributing factor, but asset bubbles, excessive derivative lending, lack of regulation, bad debts and the freeze of the commercial paper market as a result of the above had way more to do with it. This is why it is so important to point out that all of the people who 'predicted' the crash on the Austrian side did nothing more than recognize an asset bubble that had already formed. Peter Schiff didn't worry about CDOs or CDSs. He didn't talk about how the banking sector was one incestuous orgy toppling near the edge of the cliff, he bitched that interest rates were too low which meant banks were lending a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also, curious: do libertarians believe recessions can occur in libertopia? I remember watching a debate with Peter Schiff where he keeps blaming most economic problems on the Fed and said the best time in the U.S.' history was from the 1870s to the early 1900s (seems he somehow was able to catch himself not including that whole slavery period at the last second), but we've had tons of recessions, and even Depressions (!) during those times so I'm wondering what the hell? They believe that recessions can still occur, but for some reason every recession up to this point has been caused and also made worse by BIG GOVERNMENT. And sometimes they're even right, but often not for the right reasons (for instance, there's a lot of evidence suggesting that a lack of government intervention actually made the Great Depression worse in many places). Part of the problem is that you can never really prove that government action prevented a hypothetical recession. You can point to situations where deregulation resulted in situations that led to recessions, but pointing that out to a libertarian fuckwit just results in them getting squirrely
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also, curious: do libertarians believe recessions can occur in libertopia? I remember watching a debate with Peter Schiff where he keeps blaming most economic problems on the Fed and said the best time in the U.S.' history was from the 1870s to the early 1900s (seems he somehow was able to catch himself not including that whole slavery period at the last second), but we've had tons of recessions, and even Depressions (!) during those times so I'm wondering what the hell? Depends on who you ask. Some believe the only way things can go in libertopia is up. Others believes that recessions can happen but things will just be overall better so recessions won't be as bad. Others believe that people starving to death when a recession inevitably hits is "trimming the fat" or "getting rid of undesirables" which is totally a good thing and not horribly immoral at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Depends on who you ask. Some believe the only way things can go in libertopia is up. Others believes that recessions can happen but things will just be overall better so recessions won't be as bad. Others believe that people starving to death when a recession inevitably hits is "trimming the fat" or "getting rid of undesirables" which is totally a good thing and not horribly immoral at all. Generally it is phrased more nicely. Using the 2008 collapse as an example, your typical libertarian would tell you to let the market correct itself regardless of how painful it is. Now a few important things to remember. Unemployment jumped five percent in the recession, that is eight million workers and their families who were unemployed, and unemployment benefits would not have been extended in the wake of the financial collapse because 'the market has to correct.' More to the point, it is important to remember that the biggest damage in the collapse was a result of the freezing of commercial paper. A bit of a rant is incoming. The commercial paper market typically deals with high volume short term lending for multinational corporations and is intended to be pretty much the safest market on the face of the planet in most ways. When McDonalds goes to make payroll they don't actually pull it from a stack of cash in a Scrooge McDuckian vault, nor do they typically pull it directly from bank accounts since it would be dumb to have money sitting around doing nothing. Instead they will typically go to the commercial paper market and say "I need 80,000,000 today." and they'll be quoted a markup. Its typical lending, just very short term, McD's borrows the eighty million and pays it back with revenue from the next day or two plus a small amount of interest. Think of Money Market funds as a giant pay day loan and you wouldn't be that far off as many businesses will roll over their debt hundreds of times over the course of paying it off completely. Now as I said, the commercial paper market is safe. If you have say... a money market mutual fund or something similar this is what they invest in, we are talking funds so safe that they don't necessarily care about return on capital so much as the return of capital. You simply don't lose money with these funds, up until 2008 only three money market funds had ever 'broke the buck' or given back less than $1.00 on the dollar. Money market funds will typically pay out the difference with their own loving money before they break the buck because it is that big of a deal. In 2008 the oldest MM fund broke the buck off the back of Lehman. They wrote down shares of the bankrupted Lehman Brothers and gave back 97 cents on the dollar. The market promptly poo poo itself and a run on the banks began, with $169 billion out of $3.4 Trillion (5%) being pulled over the course of two days. By Friday the Fed stepped in and guaranteed these funds, which averted this specific calamity. Had they not (and this is the important part) the damage would have been extensive. Again, imagine that every payday loan place in America had their fees and interest quadruple over the course of one week. And then quadrupled again the next week. And then many places stopped giving payday loans. Yeah, so imagine that, but with IBM, McDonalds, and Best Buy instead of your sleazy cousin Joe. If the US had sat back and done nothing in Sept 2008 we would have seen another great depression, 25% unemployment, bread lines... cats and dogs living together. And this was the libertarian position, that we need to let the market 'correct'. The freezing of the Commercial paper market and the subsequent run on the money market funds isn't based in rational self interest, it was based in fear. The market panicked and if left to its own devices it would have locked itself in the closet and sat in a pool of its on urine while the world burned. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Now if only they'd hung some bankers while they were at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
If the US government had done nothing, the recession would have been much worse. If the US had bailed out homeowners and citizens, instead of the bankers, we would have been in a much better position than we would have if they had only bailed out the banks. It probably would have been cheaper to cut checks to families and individuals, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:If the US government had done nothing, the recession would have been much worse. If the US had bailed out homeowners and citizens, instead of the bankers, we would have been in a much better position than we would have if they had only bailed out the banks. It probably would have been cheaper to cut checks to families and individuals, too. I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the US had bought off the debts of everyone in foreclosure or bankruptcy directly and then immediately forgiven them, rather than subsidizing the banks. The banks still get paid, but in this scenario everyone who was on the brink of financial disaster at least has some sort of chance to take a clean slate and better themselves. But I'm not an economist, so maybe that would have been worse, I dunno. But it sounds better, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the US had bought off the debts of everyone in foreclosure or bankruptcy directly and then immediately forgiven them, rather than subsidizing the banks. The banks still get paid, but in this scenario everyone who was on the brink of financial disaster at least has some sort of chance to take a clean slate and better themselves. But I'm not an economist, so maybe that would have been worse, I dunno. But it sounds better, anyway. Yeah but we can only encourage lovely behavior in the rich because they create jobs so it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the US had bought off the debts of everyone in foreclosure or bankruptcy directly and then immediately forgiven them, rather than subsidizing the banks. The banks still get paid, but in this scenario everyone who was on the brink of financial disaster at least has some sort of chance to take a clean slate and better themselves. But I'm not an economist, so maybe that would have been worse, I dunno. But it sounds better, anyway. So, Iceland quote:REYKJAVIK, Iceland — For a country that four years ago plunged into a financial abyss so deep it all but shut down overnight, Iceland seems to be doing surprisingly well. Nah, let's just give a few trillion dollars to idiot bankers and Armani-wearing welfare queens while we lecture the people they swindled about financial responsibility and bemoan the irresponsibility of those who take on debt to have a place to live. Oh don't let's forget to guarantee the debts of the rich though, just in case the free money wasn't enough.  E: Oh yeah, and the usual Libertarian response here is "well I opposed both the bailouts of the banks and of homeowners  , this is your fault, statist". Well good for you. Oh hay, which of those fights did your magnificent self-reliant Captains of Industry allow you to win? Oh, oh I see. Hmmmmmmmmm.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
I'm just sayin' if you are at the heart of a financial scheme that creates nothing and results in a trillion dollars disappearing from the economy maybe you should at least face a fine and a prison sentence as an individual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Um excuse me but they certainly paid their indemnities when they donated massive sacks of money to both parties during every single election. As for prison sentences, well, does getting buried under lavish severance packages count?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Um excuse me but they certainly paid their indemnities when they donated massive sacks of money to both parties during every single election. Ssshhhhhhhhh be quiet. Don't say things like that. The Sacred Job Creators might hear you and take all the jobs away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
So who wants some Facebook Libertarian Goodness?! I know you do!    I've since replied but I mostly just wanted to display the glorious stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 07:26
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:So who wants some Facebook Libertarian Goodness?! I know you do! Honestly feels more like Facebook Conservative goodness. Where is the Mises.org? Where is the Taxation is theft? 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Honestly feels more like Facebook Conservative goodness. Where is the Mises.org? Where is the Taxation is theft? 3/5 Oh it came. Notice how he brought up Austrian business theory and how it would make me re-evaluate my assumptions? Besides, we already had the laffo curve thrown in there. He now laments that we're not going to have "a real conversation of ideas" after I linked my own mises article wherein the author explicitly admits Austrians reject empirical data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Haha yeah "the Laffer curve is Econ 101" in that Econ 101 textbooks mention in "this is poo poo supply side economists believe it is pretty much all bullshit, now onto real science" It's usually phrased much more politely but that's what it amounts to. And then he/she goes into "Oh you're using Keynesian economics well have you considered the Spiritual Truths to be found in [Insert Libertarian trash here]" And other just generally acting as if Keynes isn't the basic framework used by anyone who isn't a complete joke. Pretty standard libertarian evangelizing ploys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Haha yeah "the Laffer curve is Econ 101" in that Econ 101 textbooks mention in "this is poo poo supply side economists believe it is pretty much all bullshit, now onto real science" Polite rebuttals won't get the message through to a libertarian. This is a fact many women have learned, to their alarm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:49
|
|