| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fritterdonut

Joined: 24 Jul 2012 Posts: 676 Location: Hedonism
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. _________________ Clinging to the status quo
Dispute state of affairs
Instead of ringing in the change
Content with splitting hairs |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 2785
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
Mindslicer

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1570 Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 2785
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 2785
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
Mindslicer

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1570 Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 2785
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
Mindslicer

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1570 Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
Monkey Mcdermott

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 2785
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
 |
Mindslicer

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1570 Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dogen

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 9515 Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mindslicer

Joined: 04 Sep 2006 Posts: 1570 Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
Dogen

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 9515 Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snorri

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10717 Location: hiding the decline.
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
Snorri

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10717 Location: hiding the decline.
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But whatever. Both systems are equally bad. Vote Republican. _________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|