This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
US Sliding Into Socialism
»
- 2292 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
This one is not about socialism - it is about the Health Care.
I guess the HealthCare Lobby is going to win this time too: by turning the arguement for reform into an arguement about Socialism.
For a different perspective see:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/07/the-hottest-pla...
That old trick was invented by the AMA decades ago. Times are changing though.
DeMint may want to review his "not exactly cohesive" stance on socialism. He says he's against it, but then at the same time is in support of socialist policies...quack quack quack. His only saving grace is his recent attempt to amend S604 onto a policy being voted on in the Senate last week.
Socialism no, fascism yes.
Capitalism always wins, survival of the fittest. I love humans that think one set of rules is one thing and if you change the rules than it's something else. Rules are meant to be broken, that is why they are called rules. Laws can never be broken, humans have zero ability to make Laws, all they can do is make rules that either conform or not to Laws.
Rules that are in place now are setup by the king of hills... the ones that survived.
That's why Goldman Sachs rules! It doesn't matter how much people here don't like it. They are the "king of the hill" until another king takes its place. Right? So let it be.
If we had survival of the fittest this country would be far further along than it now is.
What has happened instead is that at all levels we have instituted "Survival of the Mediocre", which acts as a near fatal drag on freedom, education, health care, and a regression to the mean that has set this country on a trajectory to third world status.
As DeMint said, republicans as well as democrats have been responsible for the mess this country has become.
Incumbents have sold our country out to the highest bidders, and those incumbents are the senior members of congress, democrat and repbulican whose constituents will not turn out of office.
No, it's "survival of the fittest".... the winner wins.... loser lose. You just don't like the rules, the rules can be changed.... it's still "survival of the fittest" and always will be because humans fail to see the light of unbound capitalism, not because they have to because of rules but out of being as fair as possible to one another.
The winner is the ultimate capitalist... all this socialism, facism or communism is just Man's attempt at putting definitions on Man's rules that always end up getting changed... been like that since the beginning.
If the fittest were mediocre they wouldn't be the fittest.
Now real Laws are going to show Man's rules that Man's rules don't mean crap.
I actually fall under Tricare as retired military and reform is fine, but .....
1. You don't want a government insurance option because the government option shifts treatment costs to private payers (for example, my wife recently had some care and the provider billed about $2100 and Tricare payed about $650). In other words, private insurance is subsidizing my health care. When the private insurance companies are run out of business and the government is the only provider, there will not be anyone left to shift the costs to and care will be rationed. Check out Canada and Europe, wait times and rationing.
2. I have zero choice as my primary doctor. If my doctor happens to be apathetic because there is no financial incentive to see more patients or do a good job, then it is just too bad. It's not like you can just go to another doctor.
Medial reform is needed, but we had better be very careful. The negative impacts of a government option won't be apparent for many years.
3. Lastly, if the genuises in DC want to fix something, start with Medicare/Medicaid.
But Canadians are by and large very happy with their health care system. And you are fantasizing by saying that doctors do a "better job" because they think they can get more business. Doctors are the most coddled of all people in this ridiculous criminal conspiracy known as health care: except for big pharma, of course.
You're an idiot.
Robin Hanson, GMU economist, solved this problem years ago (1994). Nobody listened.
http://hanson.gmu.edu/buyhealth.html
Oops.... Accidentally double posted
Doesn't the US spend something like 15-18% of GDP on Medicare/Medicade?
Isn't the cost of public health care in Canada/France/UK etc... Less than 13% of GDP?
How can you condone socializing so called 'essential services' like Firfighters, Police, First Responders but not health care?
It doesn't make any damn sense.
I'm really looking forward to having Barney Frank making the health care decisions for my family.
I want the government to take care of me, because I'm not qualified to take care of myself. Feed me, clothe me, shelter me,give me free health care. That's what the Founding Fathers intended, I'm sure.
Kick out the illegals, kill all the ambulance chasing lawyers, make it $100 (cash) co-pay, and flood the country with Indian H1-B doctors and you've solved the problem.
This is easy. Give me something difficult.
Awesome! Thank you for the great laugh!
Love the RAN Squawk updates on the front page. But I had to chuckle when I read the following, which read like a PR release from Gibbsy himself. I think a few words need to at least be changed. Would the editor mind updating to:
US (Obama) mulling whether to make direct mortgage payments on behalf of some tardy borrowers (deadbeats)
US (SOCIALIST) MARKET COMMENTARY- (US) Obama may use (rescue) taxpayer funds to (subsidize) bail out mortgage companies that (take part in program) sell their soul to the government for help.
- Obama administration weighing whether to let (failing borrowers) deadbeat debtors stay in homes as (renters) squatters.
edit: Not sure why strikethrough doesn't show on preview
Actually the difference between socialism and communism is who owns the businesses, seems to me we're jumping the socialism part altogether. Capitalism has been consumed by GS and .Gov Group.