America Revolts

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Firstly THERE IS NO RATIONING OF CARE OR CEILING, care on the NHS is according to need.quote>

That's the thing. The state runs the system. The state pays the doctors. The state determines if you get treated. In other words, your fate is in the hands of the state (rhyming not intentional). quote>

But that's not the system.  At least not here, and I think there's already been an answer to the NHS. The state has never prevented me from getting treatment (they just want me to pay for it myself or make me wait). In Australia there is both public and private systems. The public system covers most of the essentials. If you want something different or the state won't cover it you are free to go private and pay for it. You aren't stopped from seeking the treatment you want, and it is not simply denied outright by some bureaucrat. We've had private health insurance for many years so you don't even have to pay for it all youself. You can get private cover which pays for private treatment (or so they say). Or you can pay for it yourself. Or you can get state provided treatment.

Public health care is not about restricting choices. It actually provides more.

The problems we are having here tend to relate to the lack of numbers of health care professionals, both public and private. Those problems tend to relate more to issues such as demographics, university places, provider numbers, and skyrocketing insurance costs for health care workers. So few people want to get into the professions, particularly the specialties. And further privatisation won't help with that.

And if a person can't afford health care and the state or charities don't provide assistance, then how is that not denying them choice? They have no choice whatsoever.quote>

I am aware of the different types of public health care systems, so, to clarify, I was talking about a state monopoly on health care, which is not the only way to provide health insurance, and in my opinion is least desirable. There is nothing wrong with a mixed system as long as the government can pay for it, which the American government, using current revenue, cannot.

[fukuda 351]

page flip!

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I am aware of the different types of public health care systems, so, to clarify, I was talking about a state monopoly on health care, which is not the only way to provide health insurance, and in my opinion is least desirable. There is nothing wrong with a mixed system as long as the government can pay for it, which the American government, using current revenue, cannot.

quote>

But I didn't think they were looking at a state monopoly system either as the other option. I always assumed that if they did introduce a public health plan in the US that it would be in addition to the private system already in place, not instead of.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I am aware of the different types of public health care systems, so, to clarify, I was talking about a state monopoly on health care, which is not the only way to provide health insurance, and in my opinion is least desirable. There is nothing wrong with a mixed system as long as the government can pay for it, which the American government, using current revenue, cannot.

quote>

But I didn't think they were looking at a state monopoly system either as the other option. I always assumed that if they did introduce a public health plan in the US that it would be in addition to the private system already in place, not instead of. quote>

Both kinds have been introduced.  Some want private and goverment systems running side by side, and other politicians have pushed for the government takeover of the healthcare sector.

There are two main problems here.  One is that there is still a significant percentage of the population who does not want an NHS type setup.  I'm one of those people.  Additionally, there is the fact that the government simply does not have the financial reserves to provide people healthcare.  Several of the states have tried to come up with Medicare/Medicaid setups, and nearly all of them have found that there is no realistic means to come up with the money needed to keep the programs afloat.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: samPublic health care is not about restricting choices. It actually provides more.quote>

If you mean choice as in monetary means, it is a terrible argument. While Dennis Kucinich (with Micheal Moores support) is setting up the one payee system, Obama's.. or well the Clinton changes will restrict health care through a bunch of expensive regulation... sorry... a lot more restrictive and expensive regulations that will only benifet a certain big-pharma companies. Anyways, even the one payee system can still be limiting, because what will the govrnment subsidize? Public health is all about restricting because it has to go through bureacracy and regulatory process that pushes prices up... that why US health is so expensive, the regulations! Which I would claim as being the U.S. public health care system centralized around a bunch of insurance companies that make money by denying people.

Originally posted by: sam The problems we are having here tend to relate to the lack of numbers of health care professionals, both public and private. Those problems tend to relate more to issues such as demographics, university places, provider numbers, and skyrocketing insurance costs for health care workers. So few people want to get into the professions, particularly the specialties. And further privatisation won't help with that.quote>

Nor will the other option. It is a moot point to argue in a dichotomy of private vs public. Although, all regulations that require expensive universities, flawed and expensive insurance options are all within the public domain of state interaction (aka public).

Originally posted by: sam And if a person can't afford health care and the state or charities don't provide assistance, then how is that not denying them choice? They have no choice whatsoever.quote>

That is not denying them choice. There will always be alternatives, certain black market alternatives that is. Like banning abortions.. people still found ways.. not the best opions available, but the choice was there. Same with madicinal use of marijuana. They made the choice. That's the difference between positve and negative liberty. Of course the system that makes abortion illigal is the supporter of positive liberty (you cannot do anything unless we grant you that right - the big brother/nanny state/god complex structure), along with the regulatory standards that are driven by corporate interest. Not that the positive liberty is a ... well a negative ... regulations that are benificial still pass, like medical marijuana in Canada ... but again ... the use of it before that ...

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: sam

And if a person can't afford health care and the state or charities don't provide assistance, then how is that not denying them choice? They have no choice whatsoever.

quote>

But there is a choice. There are public hospitals that you can go to where they will not deny you care and pay for it on the tax payers dollar.

The problem is that if we set up a public system it will cost some Americans even more money than what they for in the private system. Quite a few jobs have free health care or really cheap health care. I think my health care is like 30 bucks a month? So it's something like $360 a year. If the government had control over health care, I'm sure it would cost more than $360 a year in taxes.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Firstly THERE IS NO RATIONING OF CARE OR CEILING, care on the NHS is according to need.quote>

That's the thing. The state runs the system. The state pays the doctors. The state determines if you get treated. In other words, your fate is in the hands of the state (rhyming not intentional). quote>

But that's not the system.  At least not here,

 

Not here in Britain either, the chancellor sets an annual buget for the NHS. That is about as far as the State Government gets. The NHS sub-divides it's budget according to what it sees as the needs, Hospitals, Ambulances, General Practitioners, Patients etc.  The NHS is georgraphically divided into Primary Care Trusts who spend the Patients money according to where the patients are treated. Doctors decide on the treatment needed according to need, not according to finances, and claim the necessary funds afterwards.

Further more the Doctors and Patients can decide where treatment should take place, perhaps in Britain or Europe, perhaps in a private Hospital depending on the type of treatment and where it's available within a reasonable time frame.

There are no insurance companies creaming off large profits unless you want to take out additional insurance to have a private option (eg BUPA)etc.

 

Public health care is not about restricting choices. It actually provides more. 

And if a person can't afford health care and the state or charities don't provide assistance, then how is that not denying them choice? They have no choice whatsoever.quote>

Exactly the problem facing somepeople in the USA.

quote>

It's very easy to make erroneous assumptions of a system you don't have knowledge of and don't understand. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. British people would not want the American system.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Article 1 section 8 says that Congress can "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" never says it has to be tied to anything tangible at all.quote>

Well, I would say the constitutional requirement for a gold-based currency is tenuous at best, since the Congress has the power to "coin money" (which can be extended to bills), and to regulate the value of those coins. Nowadays, they coin the coins and print the bills, but they have no value attached to them! However, although there is no constitutional requirement for a commodity backing to the dollar, it is desirable, and should be enacted.

Also as we all know, there were NO money problems back when the US had a gold standard. none at all [/sarcasm]quote>

Aside from a plot to corner the gold market in the 1870's (which wasn't much of a success), there were little problems with the dollar. As proof, here is a chart of the value of the dollar from 1666 to 1912 (the Fed came in 1913):

You can see that it took over 150 years for prices to double. Now let's look at 1913 to present:

There couldn't be more difference between the two. And with the stable one: gold-backed currency, no Fed. The exponentially increasing one: fiat currency, with Fed. There is also a correlated acceleration in the 1970's because of the absence of any gold backing at all. There has also been unstopping inflation every year since the 1960's, and with Bernanke's plans, that curve is going to get more steep.quote>

You're correct in identifying the inflation. The way this is presented, however, is not that great. Yes, it has been unstopping since the 1960's, but under most theories a small percentage of inflation is acceptable (IIRC <3%) and can be advantageous (IIRC <2%). I agree that floating currencies look unsettling, and that a system like Bretton Woods at the very least looks more stable. Even so, it's not a currency based on nothing and without value, unless you'd call it nothing(apart from the entirety of the US economy).

But that's opinion. Here's the objective problems with your proof; It's a fun graph, but what are the sources? Right now you could have copied it off the back of a box of cornflakes for all anyone can tell. How was the inflation defined here? Assuming it's (estimated) purchasing power, what kind of index was used?

And keep in mind that bare numbers don't show everything. I don't think I have to say that you can't simply compare the pre-industrial, small scale colonial society of 1666 with the modern society of 1970 and onward, with all its bells and whistles, and then point at the end of the gold standard as if that's all that has changed about the economy.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Yes, it has been unstopping since the 1960's, but under most theories a small percentage of inflation is acceptable (IIRC <3%) and can be advantageous (IIRC <2%).quote>

The theory that the Federal Reserve operates off of is that inflation should be at about 2%.  Supposedly, that's the sweet spot where companies have the ability to set the prices for their products, but can't simply gouge the consumer left and right.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. British people would not want the American system.

quote>

And I, for one, would not want the British system. So the feeling's mutual.

[Abes 0]

To: Patricius Maximus

"Also, GM and Chrysler is not the car industry, and if you go by parts, a Toyota or Honda is more American than a GM or Chrysler car. Think about it."

I think that depends on where you buy it.............. I live in China, here, Toyotas and Hondas are BUILT in China, in fact the city I live in, Guangzhou, is where Hondas are made for China. And I have a lot of friends working in China's auto industry, or related industries, and almost all of the components are also made here. In fact, even if you buy a Buick or a Chevrolet here, chances are it's ALSO made in China. But this is the world's factory, and the increasing wealth of China's citizens means the demands for cars (and all other products) from both foreign and Chinese companies is increasing dramatically. Although, again, it does depend on what make and model you buy. A car from any global company is most likely to be made or assembled here, unless the demand isn't high enough to justify setting up a plant to make them for the Chinese market. Which is why in a Chinese Cadillac dealership, that shiny new CTS is a product of Shanghai, while the Escalade EXT SUV  next to it is an American import........... It's all about the demand vs the cost.

"High speed rail is great, and aside from limited development on the East coast, is completely absent from the US. Therefore, a HSR plan must involve creating a nationwide backbone for a network, rather than a few isolated lines; sort of what they did for interstate freeways."

Yes, I agree completely. High Speed Rail IS GREAT! And yes, the Acela development (or lack of it) is pretty bad, since it is ONLY confined to the Boston to Washington Megalopolis. You're preaching to a train buff here, and in my eyes the ultimate symbol of high-tech transport is HSR, whether you call it Acela, Shinkansen or TGV. But in order to have an efficient HSR network, don't you need other forms of public or rapid transport to get everybody off to their final destinations? If you go from L.A. to Dallas to visit family, would they live right next door to the HSR station? And the excuse for not having a decent HSR system that I have heard from some Americans I know is pretty pathetic: "Why take a high speed train between major centres? There's nothing important in the middle of country"........... I'm pretty sure that most states have big enough cities to justify investing in an HSR network. And you just might find that the overcrowding of the skies with short haul domestic flights will become a thing of the past. Just look at the French TGV network and Japan's Shinkansen system and the effects they have had on domestic air travel!

It's the same with the freeways (or motorways if you're from a British background). You need to have an adequate network to feed the traffic on and off the freeways. Look at the M1 (from present day junction 5 to present day Junction 18), M10 (now defunct) and M45 motorways in England. They were built back in the 1950s, and were the first stage of today's M1/M6/A1(M) system linking Scotland, the Midlands and London for (by British standards) extremely long range driving. The M1 was then a wonderful modern 6 lane road zooming traffic to and from London, but when it hit the A5 and A6 at what is now Jcts 5 and 18, that traffic would suddenly hit the 1950's all-purpose road network, and come to a grinding halt..... The solution to the problem, and the reason for the absence of traffic jams ON the motorway (at least until the 1970's) was 2 sets of overgrown off-ramps serving major local destinations, thus freeing up the traffic flow on long distance A roads.

And the comments on schools, I think our systems in Australia may just be better funded..... We have a large state run school system, although there are also large private schools, mostly operated by variuos Christian denominations. And I've noticed that even in China schools, at least in cities are pretty well funded, even the "poorer" ones, plus a VERY high percentage of students continue on to tertiary education here.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

You're correct in identifying the inflation. The way this is presented, however, is not that great. Yes, it has been unstopping since the 1960's, but under most theories a small percentage of inflation is acceptable (IIRC <3%) and can be advantageous (IIRC <2%). I agree that floating currencies look unsettling, and that a system like Bretton Woods at the very least looks more stable. Even so, it's not a currency based on nothing and without value, unless you'd call it nothing(apart from the entirety of the US economy).quote>

All that the currency is based on is state fiat. Whether you consider that nothing or not is up to you. Also, a currency based on gold provides restrait on inflation and inflationary policy, i.e. they would not print bills that were redeemable for 2 bars when they only had one. That would cause something of a panic.

But that's opinion. Here's the objective problems with your proof; It's a fun graph, but what are the sources? Right now you could have copied it off the back of a box of cornflakes for all anyone can tell. How was the inflation defined here? Assuming it's (estimated) purchasing power, what kind of index was used?quote>

The graph used got its data from Shadow Government Statistics, which I believe is closer to the mark of inflation than BLS statistics, as they would have a motive to cover up inflation, and the real consumer experiences just don't match with the data. However, in the interests of objectivity, I present the government data:

Not as exponential as the other chart, but you can see the same trends, so it really does not matter. You can reproduce it for yourself using an inflation calculator.

And keep in mind that bare numbers don't show everything. I don't think I have to say that you can't simply compare the pre-industrial, small scale colonial society of 1666 with the modern society of 1970 and onward, with all its bells and whistles, and then point at the end of the gold standard as if that's all that has changed about the economy. quote>

You could say the same about many periods throughout history, such as the 1920's, that the boom times caused the inflation, but you cannot deny that the two significant points on the graph (the 1930's and 1970's) where inflation took a turn for the upside are directly connected to distancing the dollar from gold, or any other commodity.

[krbe 193]

The "stable" one is actually a volatile one, and you're looking this period is the end of the zero-growth period from the end of the Roman Empire until the industrial empire. It isn't very surprising that it doesn't stabilise before the end of Civil War and the Spanish-American war.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The "stable" one is actually a volatile one, and you're looking this period is the end of the zero-growth period from the end of the Roman Empire until the industrial empire. It isn't very surprising that it doesn't stabilise before the end of Civil War and the Spanish-American war. quote>

I wouldn't say it was zero-growth, but it was not growth like after the industrial revolution.

You could say that the 1666-1913 graph is volatile, and it is, but it stayed within a slowly upward-trending range. And you can also see that the major inflationary-deflationary spikes in the graph are tied to wars (Revolution, 1812, Civil War) and their subsequent depressions (nowadays called a recession). Take out the wars, and it is relatively stable, and trends slightly upwards over many decades and centuries. This kind of gradual, slow, up-and-down inflation does not affect people much over a human lifetime (c. 100 years).

So, inflation-wise, the economy before the advent of the Fed was not affected by inflation over the long term. Contrast that to today's economy, where at best the Fed must walk a tightrope between deflation and inflation crushing the economy. With all the money printing that is going on today, no central banker in the world can prevent the inevitable sky-high inflation that is coming. They would lkely not be inclined to do that if it were on a commodity standard.

In conclusion, you have to look at the long view (decades) instead of the next quarter, the next year, or five, in order to comprehend what is going on. You cannot make a long-term conclusion by looking at the short-term (annual GDP, a single in- or deflationary period). To use an example, by looking at the Dow since March 6, it looks like a great bull market. But, looking farther to October of 2007, it looks like a nightmarish bear market. Adjust it for inflation and it looks even worse.