Universal Groceries?

Piney

I’m all for reform but not as a euphemism for cutting out aid all together, for example I’ve mentioned the US’s military budget and I think that needs reforming but that doesn’t mean I want to get rid of the US’s defensive capabilities.

 

Here is an interesting article from the American Association of Retired Persons magazine that might be of interest.

‘Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?’
By Shannon Brownlee, July & August 2008
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html

Here is an extract -

“By every conceivable measure, the health of Americans lags behind the health of citizens in other developed countries. Our life expectancy is shorter than that of citizens in Canada, Japan, and all but one Western European country. We rank 43rd in the world in infant-mortality rates, behind Cuba, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom. We are no less disabled by disease than citizens of most developed nations, and our medical care is, with few exceptions, no better at helping us survive specific diseases. For instance, the mortality rate from prostate cancer in the United Kingdom is virtually the same as it is in the United States, despite the fact that the disease is treated far less aggressively in the U.K.”

**

 

Well let me show some examples of countries that have benefited from some of the points I made about how people can better benefit from market reforms.

As far as privatization Estonia is considered a model:

As far as tax reform. Not that every country should adopt a flat tax put this shows the need for lower taxes:

As far as needing to tackel corruption:

Properly implemented privatization,a reasonable tax system and controlling corruption are what's needed to help countries to benefit from market oriented policies.

 

Another thing about those neoliberal failures that needs pointing out is that many of those failures came through the IMF and World Bank policies during the 90's. Well the IMF and World Bank aren't supported by many who advocate capitalism. Some of their biggest critics are Capitalism Magazine and Cato Institute people such as:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=687

 

...................................................................................................
National health care in The US will require increased taxes from all across the income spectrum not just the top 10% of wage earners.

Surely there a worthy cuts in expenditure outside the military budget, would you agree?

You do remember why John Lennon moved from London to New York don't you? ( 1970 )

 

Motion


You’re still not addressing the criticisms just pumping out selective links and articles that also don’t address the criticisms.

I could answer with my own set of selective links and articles’ often using remarkably similar sources, but would that get the criticisms answered, when all you’d do is reply with even more selective links and articles and so on and so on…


I mean what are you trying to say?


That privatisation is good?


Well it sometimes can be but it can go terribly wrong and you seem to agree so were does this take use in relation to a National Health Service?


How would the US be better served?


Well even the Dr Ouellet you quote seems to prefer the UK model over the US’s.


**


Are you saying that corruption is bad?


Well really do you have to say it, I mean you’re not going to get many sensible people shouting that corruption is good are you?


But then what is your definition of ‘corruption’ anyway?


When does legitimate ‘lobbying’ becomes the undue influence of wealth to manipulate a system for its own gain?


And is that in your opinion corruption?


**


You point out that a flat tax is not necessarily good, yes well there are critics that claim it is unfair and can mean many middle incomers paying more while bringing in less revenue, but then you want to put it forward as showing “the need for lower taxes”


Lower than what, may I ask?

And is that the most important thing for a country to be aiming for?

Low taxation is fine but is it worth it if the quality of life of most people has to be very low?

*
This thread is supposedly about health care, what’s more important to you a low tax rate or a good health service?

Lets look at that quote from above –

“By every conceivable measure, the health of Americans lags behind the health of citizens in other developed countries. Our life expectancy is shorter than that of citizens in Canada, Japan, and all but one Western European country. We rank 43rd in the world in infant-mortality rates, behind Cuba, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom. We are no less disabled by disease than citizens of most developed nations, and our medical care is, with few exceptions, no better at helping us survive specific diseases. For instance, the mortality rate from prostate cancer in the United Kingdom is virtually the same as it is in the United States, despite the fact that the disease is treated far less aggressively in the U.K.”

Yes it is good for a country to be prosperous but what is the aim of that prosperity?

**

 

I think there needs to be a distinction between the concept of universal health care and state monopoly provision of health care. They are two different things and should not be confused. Very few free market advocates are against universal health care (or education), they are against state monopoly provision of health care (and education).

But actually this thread is supposed to be about universal groceries. Why not?

 

Motion

I said when I entered this thread, and I quote -

The thing I want to ask you is will you stay to actually discuss this and will you address the criticisms levelled at your position?

You see the problem is that we’ve been here before and while it is obvious you’re a fanboy for neo-liberal economic ideas, I’m still not sure why, since you don’t seem able to defend them.

I’m afraid that it seems once again you prefer to retreat from a discussion rather than defend your views against criticisms.

**

 

Hiptastic

I’m not against private enterprise it is just that it is often not suited to or incompatible with, public service.

The role of private enterprise is the maximisation of profit, now free market supporters claim that that goal results in the best service at the cheapest price.

Sometimes that works but it can also work against the public interest.

To maximise profit it is not in the interests of a private medical insurance company to pay out for treatment, they want money coming in not going out.

So it is in there interests (the maximisation of profit) to have small print clauses or other devices enabling them to not pay out.

Now free market supporters would say that people should shop around and do in depth research into a company before signing with them.

But as I’ve pointed out many people do not have the time, inclination or ability to do that and even if they do some things might be hidden.

On the other side a private medical facility (to maximise profit) will want to give as much treatment as possible, to the limit of the persons insurance and until it gives out at which point they want to give the least amount of treatment (or none at all).

Now again the free marketeers will say that people should shop around for the best place and look into there treatment and so make sure the doctors or hospital are not giving them procedures that will overburden their insurance (and push up the premiums).

But again unless someone has extensive medical knowledge would they be necessarily be able to tell if something was superfluous or needed, and are they in the right mind to question what’s going on if they are in pain or unconscious?

**

 

Simple, those who are pushing for privatization are those who can afford to pay for their own health care and are the same people who will profit the most from privatization. The system isn't broke, they are letting the system get broke to justify privatization.