welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why Socialism? Him's soap box.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1172
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
What periods of history can you point to where libertarian ideals led to happiness and prosperity for the masses? Cause I can point to at least 2 where it led to wide unemployment and misery.

I would argue that the human race as a whole has never actually had a period of overall happiness and prosperity. Be it under a monarchy, a collective, a communism, a democrat government, a republican government...

I would also argue that we have never seen a point of actual "libertarian" ideals; as we have never seen a period of actual "communist" ideals. The 20's and 30's were free market, but not a pure "libertarian" environment. It would be like arguing that communism as a philosophy is bad because of the injustices perpetrated by Lenin and all his successors. By doing that, I could point to at least 100 cases in which "communism" has led to widespread misery, death, and torture. But I won't, because I understand that the USSR was a socialist society only in name.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll be coming back to this...I just don't have the drive to type up a big long post full of references showing why what mindslicer posted was half true in some cases, a deliberate distortion of the facts (The U.K. is pursuing austerity measures right now douchenozzle, of course their national health service is undergoing rationing and poorer service) in others, and generally just more of the same libertarian pipe dream you can get by listening to ron paul rant about the gold standard.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1801
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
The U.K. is pursuing austerity measures right now...


Is that when you raise taxes on everyone so you can continue to increase overall government spending (see: Public Sector Expenditure on p.86)? Because I thought austerity measures meant doing the exact opposite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes actually, it is when you reduce spending but increase taxes in order to shrink a deficit. The end result of which is to strangle growth.


Incidentally, the budget you linked doesn't really prove your point at all, it does however prove that the U.K. is reducing spending for the forthcoming year.

Edit: and since we're getting nitpicky, spending on the government social programs such as the NHS.
_________________


Last edited by Monkey Mcdermott on Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect you believe the issues the USPS are undergoing are because it's a poorly run government bureaucracy with greedy unions who are fleecing the poor tax payers with their crazy generous retirement plans.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1801
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Yes actually, it is when you reduce spending but increase taxes in order to shrink a deficit. The end result of which is to strangle growth.


Except there is no reduction in spending.



The budget I cited shows a continual increase in Public Sector Expenditures all the way until 2017.

Quote:
Incidentally, the budget you linked doesn't really prove your point at all, it does however prove that the U.K. is reducing spending for the forthcoming year.


ORLY? Show your work.

Quote:
Edit: and since we're getting nitpicky, spending on the government social programs such as the NHS...


...has been 'ring-fenced' thus far but may face cuts after the next election.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The budget you linked, on the page you cited shows an immediate drop of total managed expenditure for the only year that really matters, next year.

Projections beyond that are basically just speculation given a lack of complete prescience in the human race.

However, they also show...right there on the bottom of that page a shrinking amount of total expenditure as a % of GDP Now you can point to the fact that more money is going out, but that has a whole slew of other factors, increasing population, aging population, optimistic estimates on how much cash they'll be taking in.

Your own goddamn Link wrote:
The NHS is already having to make savings because it is accustomed to its budget rising by more than inflation to deal with an ageing and growing population. It may also have to find up to £5billion a year to pay for the Dilnot reforms, which propose a cap on how much people must pay towards their elderly care,

However, Mr Hunt suggested he would resist any attempt to pay for these reforms out of the NHS spending pot, saying it would be "extremely difficult" given the cost savings the Coalition had to make.

Mr Hunt also hinted that the Dilnot reforms may be too costly at a time of austerity. "There are other versions that might not be quite so expensive," he said.


How the fuck does any of this dispute the point I made that if you institute austerity into a national health system of course the service is going to suffer.


Edit: Beyond that when you"ring fence" a social program like that, which is continually going to have people moving into the system, the end result may as well be a budget cut. Less money to pay for more people.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1801
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
The budget you linked, on the page you cited shows an immediate drop of total managed expenditure for the only year that really matters, next year.


It also explained why: A one-time grant of assets to the public sector.

Of course in retrospect that's irrelevant, since the NHS service cuts I initially cited and that you hand-waved away as resulting from 'austerity measures' were mentioned in an article dated July 28th, 2011. Were 'austerity measures' going on then too? If so, I'd love to see some numbers supporting that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yknow what, frankly I'm just finding this argument dull and exhausting, and I don't want to spend hours digging through the internet on my last day off for a while so I concede.

Congrats you won an internet argument!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1801
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A 29-year-old woman will die without a new drug that the NHS is refusing to provide despite the manufacturer offering it to her for free
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10679
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You really don't want to start that particular comparison. I have a lifetime of personal experience being denied things I've needed by insurance companies. I once had an insurance company tell me I took too much insulin and refuse to pay for a prescription. I had an insurance company deny me an MRI my neurologist ordered because some actuarial chart somewhere said I didn't need it. I can only imagine the things I could turn up on google. Like the lady who was dropped from her coverage because she was diagnosed with MS and had a dizzy spell years earlier that the insurance company claimed constituted a pre-existing condition.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1801
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
You really don't want to start that particular comparison. I have a lifetime of personal experience being denied things I've needed by insurance companies. I once had an insurance company tell me I took too much insulin and refuse to pay for a prescription. I had an insurance company deny me an MRI my neurologist ordered because some actuarial chart somewhere said I didn't need it. I can only imagine the things I could turn up on google. Like the lady who was dropped from her coverage because she was diagnosed with MS and had a dizzy spell years earlier that the insurance company claimed constituted a pre-existing condition.


On the contrary; I am sure both systems are rife with horror stories. Because of that, I have a hard time considering the NHS or similar systems to be an ideal health insurance system as Monkey intimated when he posted his response to Kenshiro's 'what system would you propose?' question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10679
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think using the term "ideal" is overstating his position. Having lived in Canada and the US, I know I personally favor the Canadian system because it was dramatically (like 3 times) less expensive to me, and I got essentially the same care for the services I required when I lived there. Plus, life expectancies are higher in both Canada and the UK (interesting side note: if you compare only white Americans our life expectancy is about the same). So I would have to wonder whether specific instances of catastrophic tragedy were the salient determiner of quality.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
You really don't want to start that particular comparison. I have a lifetime of personal experience being denied things I've needed by insurance companies. I once had an insurance company tell me I took too much insulin and refuse to pay for a prescription. I had an insurance company deny me an MRI my neurologist ordered because some actuarial chart somewhere said I didn't need it. I can only imagine the things I could turn up on google. Like the lady who was dropped from her coverage because she was diagnosed with MS and had a dizzy spell years earlier that the insurance company claimed constituted a pre-existing condition.


Also, the drug is currently in the approval process. The company might look really good by providing it for free for a limited time, but you can see that it also promotes their chances of getting it approved since I doubt the NHS wants to give and then deny medicine to people.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But whatever. Both systems are equally bad. Vote Republican.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 8 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group