[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by CDB

You have a better accountant than I do. Plus your tax records don't include sales taxes paid, excise taxes paid, tariffs, sin taxes, etc. All of which consumers end up paying for in one way or another, plus the inflationary debt load that makes your salary's real value wilt like lettuce in a compost heap.

My tax records include just about everything since I'm self employed.

And I am nowhere near 65%

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Rufio

Actually I've paid extremely little attention to any form of media, which is obviously by and large biased in favor of the country it operates in rather than other countries. I was judging more by what I've heard from most Canadians I've spoken to. What Sunder's claiming is a first for me.


As for your other post, I agree that there is a difference between theory and practice. However, what do you advocate -- that people's health should be determined by their bank accounts? Screw anyone who can't afford critical treatment? I think you need a good middle ground between Socialism and Social Darwinism, even if it's harder said than done.

Actually Sunders post is exactly what I've heard about Canadian health care. Most of the life saving operations are performed in the US and affluent Canadians cross the border for health care.

I don't think you understand that the US DOES subsidize health care for the poor. Its called Medicaid and you have to fit into a certain bracket. Its ripe with corruption as well as illegal aliens using it for their own purposes. The tax payer pays for illegal alien health care here. Its just wonderful. Inner city hospitals are going bankrupt and emergency rooms are being shut down because of the problem. As well, older populations also receive help that is federally funded with the Medicare program.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

I have watched "Sicko" and it does not promote Socialized anything.

It points out rather brilliantly that the current US health care system is designed specifically to generate profits for the share holders of HMOs !

Which means in liberal/Moore speak it promotes socialism, because profits are evil. It presumes that profit and promoting wellness are mutually exclusive, but proposes no reason as to why this is so other than an appeal to economic ignorance. The real question is how and why the aquisition of 'profits' for the HMOs and other health care providers are divorced from success in serving the customer. That's the real question because it focusses attention on the actual process and how it has been managed, by the government, to favor those organizations. And this inherrently makes a government solution look less likely than if you were to simply take up the flag of PROFIT = EVIL. In any other un****ed with industry the ability to earn a profit for yoruself or shareholders is tied directly to consumer satisfaction.

It also helps if you know what a profit is. A profit is residual income resulting from underpriced factors of production. If a person produces product X and foresees an upswing in demand and invests in productive capacity before the upswing occurs the difference between the price he paid to increase capacity before the demand hit and the price it would have cost after the demand hit, and after all other costs are accounted for, is his profit. It means he moved the fastest and most efficiently to satisfy consumer demand before it affected prices up the cone of production.

In other words profits are what incent people in every other industry on the planet to do better work, to accumulate capital and to drive down unit costs. It is only the economically ignorant, like Moore, who don't understand the inherrent contradiction of singling out medical industry as the one industry in the world which is magically immune to the laws of economics. The one industry in the world where the aquisition of knowledge and capital drives costs up instead of down, and yet the accumulation continues none the less. It's pure bull**** and rooted in ignorance.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Actually Sunders post is exactly what I've heard about Canadian health care. Most of the life saving operations are performed in the US and affluent Canadians cross the border for health care.

I don't think you understand that the US DOES subsidize health care for the poor. Its called Medicaid and you have to fit into a certain bracket. Its ripe with corruption as well as illegal aliens using it for their own purposes. The tax payer pays for illegal alien health care here. Its just wonderful. Inner city hospitals are going bankrupt and emergency rooms are being shut down because of the problem. As well, older populations also receive help that is federally funded with the Medicare program.

And doctors want to opt out of the system because they suck on payments. Medicaid and Medicare are both abject failures. One wonders why nationalizing the whole system will will suddenly be better.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by CDB

One wonders why nationalizing the whole system will will suddenly be better.

That's the point. People who think you take the 2nd most corrupt industry and combine with the most corrupt industry, an industry which has already showed it can't handle it is simply ridiculous.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by CDB

Which means in liberal/Moore speak it promotes socialism, because profits are evil. It presumes that profit and promoting wellness are mutually exclusive, but proposes no reason as to why this is so other than an appeal to economic ignorance. The real question is how and why the aquisition of 'profits' for the HMOs and other health care providers are divorced from success in serving the customer. That's the real question because it focusses attention on the actual process and how it has been managed, by the government, to favor those organizations. And this inherrently makes a government solution look less likely than if you were to simply take up the flag of PROFIT = EVIL. In any other un****ed with industry the ability to earn a profit for yoruself or shareholders is tied directly to consumer satisfaction.

No, the fact that profit and wellness are two different things does not make them mutually exclusive, The majority of HMO case are providing health care while making a profit!

However, a persons well being must be considered secondary to profit or the system would not work.(be profitable)

No EVIL, just facts about economics

Now there may be some evil people with the power to effect change in the individual HMOs of the health care system.

It would be unfortunate if these evil people had to make a choice that involved your health and wellbeing.

The shear joy of an economics lesson would probably not help your case!

[CDB]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

No, the fact that profit and wellness are two different things does not make them mutually exclusive, The majority of HMO case are providing health care while making a profit!

However, a persons well being must be considered secondary to profit or the system would not work.(be profitable)

Which is, once more, incorrect. That's like saying the ability to produce a car that works has to be secondary to profit for the automobile industry to work. It's nonsense. The quality of the car, and the ability of the company to deliver it to consumers, is what leads to returns, or profits in the colloquial sense. If a company is pulling in money independent of consumer's satisfaction or willingness to buy their product, then one has to ask why this is possible. The answer is almost always the government is screwing things up.

The shear joy of an economics lesson would probably not help your case!

Based on past conversations, you educating me on economics is a bit laughable to say the least.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by CDB

Based on past conversations, you educating me on economics is a bit laughable to say the least.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by CDB

In other words profits are what incent people in every other industry on the planet to do better work, to accumulate capital and to drive down unit costs. It is only the economically ignorant, like Moore, who don't understand the inherrent contradiction of singling out medical industry as the one industry in the world which is magically immune to the laws of economics. The one industry in the world where the aquisition of knowledge and capital drives costs up instead of down, and yet the accumulation continues none the less. It's pure bull**** and rooted in ignorance.

So,humor me a bit here.

Everything has to be for profit or the world and its people will not work?

Could there be any other motivating factor for the worlds people? How about the incentive to survive?

The United States is the world's most economically dominate country, right?

Does the United States actually turn a profit every year?

Does the United States operate at a 9 digit deficit?

So, even with trillions of dollars of debt we still dominate the worlds economy, why is that ?

Could it be because a political entity does not have to operate at a profit in order to be functional?,

Operating at loss to benefit the well being of the people seems a bit more satisfying that operating at a loss to fund a war for corporate oil cartels!

Surely a few hundred billion more on a universal health care system wouldn't change our position of global dominance and then we would have free health care just like England and France or even Cuba!

Capitalism is based on the incentive created by the promise of imagined profits. The realization of profit is secondary as an incentive.

The success of a business is often based on surviving in this world while operating at a loss!!! ( ie Amazon,Yahoo)

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by CDB

Which means in liberal/Moore speak it promotes socialism, because profits are evil. It presumes that profit and promoting wellness are mutually exclusive, but proposes no reason as to why this is so other than an appeal to economic ignorance. The real question is how and why the aquisition of 'profits' for the HMOs and other health care providers are divorced from success in serving the customer. That's the real question because it focusses attention on the actual process and how it has been managed, by the government, to favor those organizations. And this inherrently makes a government solution look less likely than if you were to simply take up the flag of PROFIT = EVIL. In any other un****ed with industry the ability to earn a profit for yoruself or shareholders is tied directly to consumer satisfaction.

It also helps if you know what a profit is. A profit is residual income resulting from underpriced factors of production. If a person produces product X and foresees an upswing in demand and invests in productive capacity before the upswing occurs the difference between the price he paid to increase capacity before the demand hit and the price it would have cost after the demand hit, and after all other costs are accounted for, is his profit. It means he moved the fastest and most efficiently to satisfy consumer demand before it affected prices up the cone of production.

In other words profits are what incent people in every other industry on the planet to do better work, to accumulate capital and to drive down unit costs. It is only the economically ignorant, like Moore, who don't understand the inherrent contradiction of singling out medical industry as the one industry in the world which is magically immune to the laws of economics. The one industry in the world where the aquisition of knowledge and capital drives costs up instead of down, and yet the accumulation continues none the less. It's pure bull**** and rooted in ignorance.

Bobo posted some stuff about India's hospitals being in rough shape due to lack of regulation.

If a pure capitalist system works so profoundly well, why aren't India's hospitals the best in the world?

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by CDB

Which is, once more, incorrect. That's like saying the ability to produce a car that works has to be secondary to profit for the automobile industry to work.

You really should have picked a better example, the auto industry?

It's nonsense. The quality of the car, and the ability of the company to deliver it to consumers, is what leads to returns, or profits in the colloquial sense. If a company is pulling in money independent of consumer's satisfaction or willingness to buy their product, then one has to ask why this is possible.

General Motors and Ford have pulled this off for at least 30 years!

The answer is almost always the government is screwing things up.



Based on past conversations, you educating me on economics is a bit laughable to say the least.

I must correct you here because in my quote I was not suggesting that you take an economics lesson from me. I would not be so haughty.

I meant that, If you were injured and uninsured and you went into one of your lengthy discussions on the merits of capitalism and profit, then it would only hurt your case with the insurer!

It would be the very definition of irony!


No sir you are the teacher !!!

I am just a humble student who doesn't take himself as seriously as you do !

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Bobo posted some stuff about India's hospitals being in rough shape due to lack of regulation.

If a pure capitalist system works so profoundly well, why aren't India's hospitals the best in the world?

Because over 35% of their population is below the poverty line.

India is trying to model their system MORE like the US with tougher regulations.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

So,humor me a bit here.


The United States is the world's most economically dominate country, right?

Does the United States actually turn a profit every year?

Does the United States operate at a 9 digit deficit?

So, even with trillions of dollars of debt we still dominate the worlds economy, why is that ?

( ie Amazon,Yahoo)

I dont understand what you are trying to get at. The us most certainly does turn a profit every year. We are the most domiante according to GDP. I think you are talking about 2 different things. The us federal government may operate at a deficit every year but certainly the US economy does not.