AlaskaEMT
Forum Crew Member
- 73
- 0
- 0
The "fend for yourself" system actually benefits the most amount of people than any other system. "Basic Economics" will give you the answers you seek young Jedi.
Election 2008
- Thread starter ffemt8978
- Start date
The "fend for yourself" system actually benefits the most amount of people than any other system. "Basic Economics" will give you the answers you seek young Jedi.
AlaskaEMT
Forum Crew Member
- 73
- 0
- 0
This is tomorrow's lesson, seriouslyWant to do my warm up? What's a country's responsibility during a natural disaster?
It depends. Even most libertarians believe government has an obligation to organize against foreign aggressors, natural disasters, and the like.
I'm sure things are just peachy in Alaska, since that state is the individually wealthiest, last I checked. Oil, and all.
However, have you taken a peek at Michigan or Ohio lately? We're fending for ourselves, and **** isn't going so well.
AlaskaEMT
Forum Crew Member
- 73
- 0
- 0
I'm a poor, Ramen-eating college student. However, there is no room in economics for opinion... it is science just like chemistry and physics. Welfarism and wealth redistribution are overall hurtful to the general population. Believe me, I know what you're saying Hastings and I once had the same view, but tax cuts foster more growth than anything else. Still, I'm voting for Obama because I need to see this war over and done with.
Ron Paul was my first choice.
Ron Paul was my first choice.
- 5,606
- 472
- 83
It all makes sense now <_<
Truthfully, economics is far more complicated than even I can ever imagine. In college I'd sit through my economics courses and think I had the solution to a problem until the professor remarked that it wasn't just that simple. Unfortunately there is no easy answer for a lot of our problems, but I do believe that all people should be guaranteed access to law, education, and health care.
I thought she was critical of "the bridge to nowhere." Nevertheless, she doesn't really deserve any credit for reform because the political tide was against the bridge before she was even elected.
McCain is an old man and could drop dead at any second. You can't tell me she is the best-qualified individual next in line for the presidency. The choice was obviously not based on what was best for the country. It was based on political expediency. Political expediency and what is best for the country should run parallel to each other. When they don't, it really speaks down to the average voter--and deservedly so.
So our choices are now either one step closer to communism and overall increase in social dependency under obama or running the risk of having an unknown hockey mom as our president. I'm not happy with either choice.
OP
OP
- 11,117
- 1,571
- 113
Why am I suddenly reminded of the movie "Brewster's Millions"? Something about his "None of the Above" campaign.
BossyCow
Forum Deputy Chief
- 2,910
- 7
- 0
Lets not fool ourselves. The president will have a lot to do that will impact EMS aside from socialized medicine.
Some of the decisions made cabinet-wise have deeply impacted Emergency Services and its funding. And its not just administrative branch. Legislation is being passed regarding the taxation of volunteer reimbursements and incentives.
Judges appointed by the next administration will rule on laws regarding limitations on monetary awards for lawsuits, death with dignity, and privacy issues for many years to come.
Its incumbent upon all of us to educate ourselves about the candidates in all the offices and to choose the one who best represents those positions we hold.
As for me, I'm an old hippie. I believe in voting for the candidate I feel best represents my own political leanings, rather than the least offensive of the most likely to be elected. So I'm voting for Nader.... again......
Some of the decisions made cabinet-wise have deeply impacted Emergency Services and its funding. And its not just administrative branch. Legislation is being passed regarding the taxation of volunteer reimbursements and incentives.
Judges appointed by the next administration will rule on laws regarding limitations on monetary awards for lawsuits, death with dignity, and privacy issues for many years to come.
Its incumbent upon all of us to educate ourselves about the candidates in all the offices and to choose the one who best represents those positions we hold.
As for me, I'm an old hippie. I believe in voting for the candidate I feel best represents my own political leanings, rather than the least offensive of the most likely to be elected. So I'm voting for Nader.... again......
firecoins
IFT Puppet
- 3,880
- 18
- 38
There are alot of opinions in Chemistry and Physics. There are many more opinions in economics. But yes tax cuts are good.
sorry i missed a few days of the fun
hate to rain on your flowers and rainbows....but you aren't supporting "universal" health care....what about non-US citizens...there are millions of people in the world without health insurance...do you propose giving them free high quality health care too? If the answer is "its not the responsibility of the USFed Govt to provide for non citizens, my response is that it isn't their responsibility to provide for citizens either.
At a minimum it should be a state issue....10th ammendment....my state (MA) managed to deal with it....tell yours to get with the picture.
All your arguments are good reasons for the US to provide health care to the world. I'm willing to bet you aren't "willing" to give up that share of your paycheck....which brings me to the crux of the argument really
it's super that you are happy to give up your paycheck...really it is. You should be proud of your generosity. And I think there should be a box to check on everybody's tax returns to voluntarily contribute to an expanded Medicare program (don't kid yourself....a bigger version of that super awesome efficient program is what you are proposing).
The problem is when you are also willing to give away MY money...you may be a humanitarian, but if you try to force me to be equally nice at the point of a gun, expect some dispute. The only things I'm willing to pay taxes on are things that an average individual couldn't afford on their own, but which when purchased collectively with others, provide common benefit. Examples are roads, armies, navies, fire departments, water systems, etc. Even those I wouldn't mind going private...
Health insurance doesn't qualify any more than do cars, gasoline, or puppy dogs (which reduce stress and add years to your life...i bet on balance you get more years per free puppy than you do per free pacemaker implantation...) If you want to volunteer your money: DO IT!....let me make my own decisions on how charitable i want to be.
Next issue:
do you really want our amazing government to be making decisions as to what medical procedures are approved and which aren't? I'm genuinely interested in how you deal with the problem of a highly experimental (read: expensive) procedure which has about a 20% chance of working? Ask any billing type what they think about Medicare procedures to get in insight into that type of decision making....strap yourself in though.
Finally:
Back to the 10th ammendment. A federally imposed universal healthcare system is unconstitutional. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Remember remember the fifth of November...."
And don't forget....there is an alternative!
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/health-care/
Everyone knows that the Dems and Repubs have horrible candidates....whats a person to do???
Vote early vote often.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/health-care/
Everyone knows that the Dems and Repubs have horrible candidates....whats a person to do???
Vote early vote often.
I tend to agree with your point of view, but I suspect for different reasons.
Just to throw a hitch in your get-along, both Medicaid and Medicare are far more efficient than the vast majority of private healthcare companies.
Rather have the government do it than insurance companies. And it's one or the other. When insurance companies are looking for any excuse to deny you a medical procedure / coverage, it can't be any worse.
Experimental procedures? Nah. Let the national free coverage cover the basic necessities. ER, Ambulance, yearly checkups, and the such. That alone more than justifies the cost.
As for everything before that, universal, I suppose, was the wrong word? How about...national free health care. As in, the citizens of this country pay a little extra and everyone in this country can see a doctor when they need to. Unless you're Superman, I have a feeling in your lifetime you'll get more out of it personally than you put in. And at the same time, other people get coverage too. It's a win on both fronts.
Thats really the opposite of what most people need. There's no reason people need health insurance for a routine PCP visit...any more than they need car insurance to pay for their oil change. we could greatly reduce costs by streamlining the billling process for such procedures by having pay directly to their PCP like they used to....insurance is for calamities, not routine expenses. That also gives people an incentive to shop around for the most cost effective primary care.
As for me getting more out....i seriously doubt it. Unless you are going to put a hugely disproportionate cost on the top half percent or so, more people are going to have to put into the system than get out of it in order to make it solvent....it can't even break even because of the necessary machinery to make it work....like friction in an engine, the bureaucracy strips out money that could be used for health care. Don't even get me started about the ridiculous tax system in this country (which would be used to pay for your healthcare scheme, and presumably would continue to take a disproportionate amount from the "wealthy")....epitome of red tape caused waste...how many billions of hours (time is money) are wasted every year on just figuring out the tax code.
(tax code needs to be simplified. One rate for everyone, you only pay on any income you earn above the poverty level, adjusted for state. Or something along those lines.)
Source? I'm not just being belligerent...i've actually never seen a scholarly comparison of the two.
My argument would be that private insurance companies can't operate at maximum efficiency anyways, due to the plethora of gov't imposed regulations that they have to comply with.
AlaskaEMT
Forum Crew Member
- 73
- 0
- 0
Economics is all about cause-and-effect. There is no opinion about what happens to water below 32 degrees or what direction gravity pulls an apple from a tree, just like there is no opinion about what happens went rent control is implemented (rent actually increases) or when there is prohibition (black markets emerge).
The important thing to realize is economics is only concerned with what emerges, not what anyone intended.
The only instance where there is room for hypothesis is when the economic policy in question hasn't been used in society before. One example might be what effect the F.A.I.R. tax would have on America.
Google is your friend. Use it, love it.
Interesting argument. My argument would be that private insurance companies can't operate at maximum efficiency because they have to actually worry about making money. These efficiency studies never take into acount the other government agencies (ex. IRS) that go into making Medicaid/care work. So, there is a lot of room for interpretation and argument on both sides.
I wrote a little bit about our health care system in this thread if anyone is interested.
http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=65070#post65070
Last edited by a moderator: