Our government is getting very greedy. They just take, take, take, spend, spend, spend. "Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work. And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons." i just think it's totally wrong, and unnecessary. So I was thinking of a good alternative. Capitalism seems like the safest bet. If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder? A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway? If you want to fund some sort of movement, go ahead, you shouldn't be FORCED to in this so called "free country." I just don't see the downside. If you lose ur job, then it'll still be easier to live because you won't have to pay taxes and you're not taking money from other hard workers. (If you don't want bills, then don't use the appliances or such) I mean, it just seems like the right way to live, where YOU are in charge of your own life. Why should these guys get to have authority over you?
Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work
Sounds like conservative rhetoric to me. I assume you're making a complaint about welfare, and while that isn't necessarily how it works, I would agree that there are some people who abuse it. But if welfare didn't exist I think it would drastically change the life of the 99%. Now I'm not necessarily preaching for the 99%, but if the government didn't provide welfare, republicans would just complain about how the gov't wasn't providing for "impoverished american citizens", while now they're just apparently people who can't work for themselves.
Capitalism seems like the safest bet.
I'm not sure what you mean. America is a Capitalistic society.
If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder? A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway?
A common argument against a more socialistic economy. But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.
Anyway on your post as a whole, I think you'd find that as far as the type of society you find ideal, you're not gonna find a better place for it than you United States. Unless of course you're looking for a nation where pageants are banned for those under sixteen.
Still well on the Capitalistic side, but it's a mixed economy that's inching in the Socialistic direction.
But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.
That, and it might not be best to have a mercenary-based law enforcement, although the current system pulls plenty of crap now. On second thought, maybe some competition could work because such things would be really bad for business and people would choose a better-trained service.
The problem with privatizing emergency services stems from two issues:
1) There will always be crime, fires, and heart attacks. I could open up my own police station and offer terrible service, because there will always be crime and people would rather have terrible police than no police.
2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?
Taxes suck, I'll give you that. But the good things they help achieve help to offset this: Free emergency services (police, fire, etc). AIDs research. Servicable roads for us to drive on. A national postal system. A military to defend our freedoms.
Why should these guys get to have authority over you?
1) Otherwise life would be nasty, brutish, and short.
KnightDeclan, just take an economics course or two. You'll quickly realize that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, but I can't state it another way ... what you're saying is flat out incorrect.
However, I will link a concept that covers what you've said.
A common argument against a more socialistic economy. But I'm not sure a police station is a very good example for this, since they're not necessarily "making more business" and are already paid by the state.
Exactly, but if it were capitalist, then they would be more of a business.
1) There will always be crime, fires, and heart attacks. I could open up my own police station and offer terrible service, because there will always be crime and people would rather have terrible police than no police.
Let's say there are two police stations in one town. They would be competing to get more business, and try harder and do a better job.
2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?
Good point, I guess i didn't think of that. Well, of course, medical treatment isn't free today. And I think that there would still be insurance companies.
KnightDeclan, just take an economics course or two. You'll quickly realize that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, but I can't state it another way ... what you're saying is flat out incorrect.
Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right? A country should want to have a government where at least MOST people are happy. Can you name anybody in the U.S that's completely satisfied with our government? If we at least tried out a capitalistic government, we could see. The government was made for the people, not the people for the government.
However, I will link a concept that covers what you've said. Public Goods
This is basically volunteer work, there's a major difference
2) And an even greater issue: Where will the profits come from? Are you going to charge people to chase after their stolen goods? To put out their house fire? To give them CPR (though hospitals are allready somewhat privatized.) I think we can all agree that if you're having a heart attack then you need a doctor. But trips to the hospital cost tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should poor people be punished for their poverty if the fire department decides to charge 10K to put out fires?
In ancient rome, Crassius made his millions by first buying the houses near the fire at a reduced price (or else he wouldn't put out the fire), and then sold them back for twice what he paid.
Exactly, but if it were capitalist, then they would be more of a business.
Capitalist (at least as I understand it), is where people are free to make millions by being successful business men, however, it isn't right to have emergency services be business (see crassius/crassus, w/e his name was).
Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right? A country should want to have a government where at least MOST people are happy. Can you name anybody in the U.S that's completely satisfied with our government? If we at least tried out a capitalistic government, we could see. The government was made for the people, not the people for the government.
Let's say there are two police stations in one town. They would be competing to get more business, and try harder and do a better job.
Competition doesn't guarantee a better product. A mortitioner, knowing that people will always die, can offer terrible services and yet still retain business because the need is always there. It'd be the same woth these police businesses: I'd rather have terrible cops patrolling the atreets for crime, because the alternative of no cops is much worse.
Competition works because it forces companies to offer incentives to use their product. Apple wants to make the beat iPhone as possible so it can steal custer era from Android and give people an incentive to buy their product. I don't have to buy an iPhone; I could exist quite happily without a smartphone. But I get the iPhone because I believe it to be superior to the competing products. But competition will not work with emergency services because my incentive is simply to stop the emergency. I will always choose to prevent my house burning down than doing nothing; I will always choose to stop me getting mugged than doing nothing. In a sense, emergency services have a sort of monopoly on disaster.
Good point, I guess i didn't think of that. Well, of course, medical treatment isn't free today. And I think that there would still be insurance companies.
Except that the health insurace issue is a giant, vicious cycle. Medical treatment is expensive, so insurance agencies charge rates to pay for it. The hospitals, knowing they can get money from the insurance company, raise proces. Insurance companies then raise rates or drop coverage of certain procedures, inorder to offset the cost. Consumer is screwed, but continues to pay the rates because the alternative of the full price of an operation is worse. And you can't switch hospitals, because its an industry-wide phenomenon. Competition does not guarantee a better product; see above.
Everybody has different opinions, why does yours have to be right?
[/quote]"Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work. And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons."
If you're referring to the military, they're protecting your country.
[/quote] Why should these guys get to have authority over you?
Because if you were to be an outsider, you'd be living like cavemen. You're given a choice to be safe with the rest or be hated without the rest.
This is an aside, but I'd have to say that a capitalistic healthcare system seems to be a much better option. Granted, I'm only comparing this to the UK healthcare system. But at least here it seems like you get what you pay for. There are constantly stories about people dying whilst waiting to be treated or people receiving the wrong treatment because patient files get mixed up. There was recently a story concerning nurses who are essentially incompetent (as ascribed by NHS) and yet continue to work in the field. It also seems that many hospitals are just haemorrhaging money.
Part of this comes down to the fact that people will go to hospital here without a second thought. A while back there was a story about a man who went to A&E for a splinter. He was advised to do so by the NHS hotline, but still. If you know you're going to have to pay to go to hospital, I imagine most people would think twice before making that call.
The problem is - I don't know what the solution might even look like. On the one hand, it's great to be able to go to the doctor, get a prescription, and not have to pay anything at all. But viewing the system as a whole, it looks like an absolute nightmare. I would be very hesitant to have a major surgery performed in the UK given the number of mistakes that occur on a daily basis.
But, as has been pointed out, privatisation of some government services just doesn't make sense. The police, for example, need to be properly attached to the judicial system (and thus, the government as a whole) in order to avoid potentially serious violations of rights. Simply put, I wouldn't want to have a privatised police force.
As for the welfare system - sure, it's abused by a number of people. But during its first few years, it helped a tremendous number of people to establish themselves as positive members of society. In short, there are lots of people who genuinely need welfare and only want to use it to get back on their feet. I can imagine various changes to the system that might cut down on its abuse, although I'm not sure that the cost of these changes would offset the losses caused by said abuse.
That's a cool link. And now I don't know what to think. Although it may be worth noting that the expenditure per capita of the UK is rated a 26 whilst the US is a 1. I don't know what these number refer to exactly, though. Is that 26 units of the relevant currency to 1 person? But surely it's not that. Still, I wonder why the UK isn't higher or the US lower given the discrepancy between those two numbers. I don't really understand the table to begin with, though.
I would be very hesitant to have a major surgery performed in the UK given the number of mistakes that occur on a daily basis.
The NHS, to be fair, is pretty bad. But they will often actually hand the job over to private hospitals, so in that way they are equivalent to a health insurance company with fixed rates.
It developed a series of performance indicators to assess the overall level and distribution of health in the populations, and the responsiveness and financing of health care services.
Like Moe, I'm not sure what to make of the list. I don't know what the study measures. However, it might just measure how much healthcare is distributed among the people. If that's the case, any country with "already been payed" healthcare will rank higher than "ay at the window" care.
A lot of people believe health care should be available to absolutely everyone, no matter what. However, there are many implications that are often ignored. As Moe mentioned, some hospital visits are quite frivolous - such as the man going to the hospital for a splinter.
It seems like people who live under the public healthcare system are quite happy with said system. But why is that? Perhaps most of these people have never had major emergencies, therefore they never felt like they needed to rush. Some of these people get free care for treating expensive ailments. I have to wonder, what about those who have been harmed by the public healthcare system?
In the U.S., I have never heard of availability being a big problem. Most people who want healthcare are just afraid - not ill or in need of it. The problem with American healthcare is that those who do get sick, very sick, often can't afford the best treatments.
I'm all for privatized healthcare, but I'll admit that I need to do more research into the issue. I've heard redicilous stories about public health care, but I've also heard people who depend on it, praise it.
Who benefits most in each system? Do people who have more money deserve better care? Who gets hurt the most in each system? How much do the people pay in each system? (People pay for public health care through taxes - so it's not free) How much does supply suffer in each system?
"Like Moe, I'm not sure what to make of the list. I don't know what the study measures. However, it might just measure how much healthcare is distributed among the people. If that's the case, any country with "already been payed" healthcare will rank higher than "ay at the window" care."
Apologies for the double post. I realized what I said obviously isn't true since many countries are ranked below the U.S. I hope my point remains semi-valid.
In a privatized system, the people who benefit most are the hospital owners, doctors, and insurance companies. Healthcare is a product that everyone is going to consume at one point or another, thus the people -must- buy it or suffer with their ailments. You might argue that competition will drive down prices, but it's such a specialized field that requires enormously expensive assets (doctor's education, the facilities and equipment) that the price will be much higher than the average person can afford, which is why health insurance is such a huge thing to have. However, these insurance companies know that, and charge you up the wall for it, because your other option is paying for it entirely yourself and then you're screwed.
Do people who have more money deserve better care?
I would say that everyone has the right to be treated, for whatever their illness is. No one should have to suffer, because they don't have the money to afford a procedure that can (and often does) literally mean life or death, or a definite change in quality of life and happiness.
Who gets hurt the most in each system?
In a capitalistic system, the middle/lower class. In a socialist system, only those who are not wealthy enough to go to a private system but wealthy enough that they could have afforded better care in a non-socialized system. However, that only applies if the socialized system cannot treat them adequately for some reason.
How much do the people pay in each system? (People pay for public health care through taxes - so it's not free)
The money is getting paid one way or another. In a capitalistic system, that money comes out of each individual person's pocket. Those who can't afford it out of their pocket, don't. In a socialistic system, everyone is presumably paying a portion of their income into the system, so that everyone can have the care they need if/when they need it. Overall expenditures mean that the rich pay more, while the lower/middle class pays less.
How much does supply suffer in each system?
I seriously doubt supply would be a problem. There -might- be a slightly longer waiting period because, as you mentioned, people will go for less dire reasons, but overall I'd imagine there's little to no difference in average wait time. Hell, even in privatized care, you have to wait. The whole argument that socialized care will take longer and thus have people die from waiting is an exaggeration and ignoring that the exact same thing can happen in the system we have in the USA.
