Thursday, March 5, 2009
Debate: Socialism and Socialized Medicine (and education)
Originally this was all attached as comments to the post "Why I'm voting Democrat". Unfortunately, it became 20+ pages long. For the three people who read iit (Kendall, myself, and Fluffy my imaginary monkey) this is a bit much. So, I'm moving the comments into appropriate categories so Fluffy can reach them easily. So they don't clog up the main page, the text of the debate is recorded as a comment itself. Enjoy, Fluffy, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:53am on October 4th, 2008
The points above are about veterans issues because it was put together to fight McCain's, "I love Veterans, they love me" rant at the end of the first debate.
No, veterans issues are not the only reason why I am voting for Obama.
If you want to talk socialism, lets talk the last four weeks in the Bush Administration, setting forth the largest socialist policies this country has ever seen. (Fannie & freddie, AIG, and now the bailout)
The bailout...the one that "fiscal conservative" republicans wouldn't vote for until they added more spending to the bill. At least millions of dollars are going to Puerto Rican Rum, I'm cool with that.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:54am on October 6th, 2008
The bailout: A horrible idea. One of the most socialist plans ever invented. It's supported by Obama, by McCain, by Bush, by just about everybody except the American people. This shows that the idea of big government is pervasive, but since it's supported by both candidates, it's hard to use in a debate of this nature, except to warn that we cannot allow socialism to creep in any further.
Redistribution: "If "Redistribution of Wealth" - My stance...if you benefit the most from this country....put a little more back into it. I don't make over 250K, I doubt you do. So you will get a tax cut under Obama's plan."
So everyone must pay their “Fair Share”. Webster’s has this to say: “FAIR implies an elimination of one's own feelings, prejudices, and desires so as to achieve a proper balance of conflicting interests” If you were giving away 9 candies to three children, you would say that each gets 3, because that is their “fair share”. Keep that in mind.
Yes, I would get a tax cut. So would you. So would most Americans. Everyone except the rich would. There’s only one problem…The rich pay all the taxes! In 2005, the richest 1% paid a whopping 39% of all taxes paid that year. The top 5% paid close to 60% of all taxes. The bottom half? The bottom 50% paid a mere 3% of all tax revenue collected that year. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html)
Before you say that they pay so much because they have all the income, look at this: In 2005, the richest 5% of people controlled 36% of the money in America. Yet they paid 60% of the taxes. That means that 24% of their tax burden was above “their fair share.”
How about as a rate? Perhaps this is fair? Not so. The tax rate on the richest Americans is currently approximately 35%. On the poorest? 10%. This of course doesn’t include many discounts that the poorest Americans get (for instance, the EIC) that can make their effective tax 0, or even a negative tax rate.
The rich’s only crime is that they are more successful than those around them. Whether it be greater talent, greater drive, or greater luck, they are being punished with an astronomical tax rate simply because they have succeeded. When you tell someone “I will take 25% more of your money if you are too successful”, what will be the reaction? The same as with any punishment: The action will be discouraged. Discouraging success is not what made us the greatest nation in history. Punishing wealth is not a policy of for prosperity. These are policies of socialism, and as they always have in the past, will lead us into failure.
Drilling: I hear this all the time. “If we drill, we’ll get no oil for 10 years.”First: If we had started drilling in the mid-90’s, when it was first brought up, we would be seeing this oil today. Second: Are you planning on going somewhere in 9 years? I don’t know about you, but America is a long term plan for me. Third: What do we have to lose by letting the private sector invest their money in oil? The Hirsch Report (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf) predicts that implementing the switch from fossil fuels to alternatives could take up to 20 years of concerted effort to happen. Obama’s plan seems to be that we ought to race for alternative and hope for the best. I am suggesting that perhaps we should secure an energy source we can use today, so we can still be around in 20 years for the energy of tomorrow.
This novel I have written covers most of your points. In closing, I too used to be a Republican. I was driven away by the insipid spread of creeping socialism into my party. Instead of a choice between the liberal and the conservative, I now have a choice of the liberal and the socialist. I stand by the values of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government that have made this country great.
Vicki Salmon wrote
at 11:17pm on October 6th, 2008
"I stand by the values of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government that have made this country great."
Hey! Have you crossed over into my neck of the political woods, dear? Neo-libertariansism - for those who think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea, and maybe we should give their version a shot.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 6:39am on October 7th, 2008
I won't call myself any sort of Libertarian, at least not yet. I'm sticking with Conservative (As in the type that Reagan was) Capitalist...Still, I've always found friends with the Libertarians (and roommates sometimes, aka Gottberg)
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:36am on October 7th, 2008
Since out differences are a matter of opinion, other than global warming that is all I will respond too. I'm just glad to see someone who is voting republican because of the issues and not the typical "democrats cut the military" crap which I always hear; which is why I started with the Veterans votes.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:21am on October 14th, 2008
My vote: Obama wins the veterans spending issue...He's still a socialist.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 2:02pm on October 14th, 2008
And if Obama is a socialist, then I guess I am one too.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 6:46am on October 15th, 2008
Well, at least you've recognized it. Admitting you've got socialism is the first step to fixing it.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 12:18pm on October 15th, 2008
we've always had socialism, Public schools, libraries, trash removal, etc...
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 12:52pm on October 15th, 2008
You make a good point. Unfortunately, traces have been present for a long time. Its only in recent history that they've started to grow at this alarming rate. The public school system, for example, has grown from a locally owned and operated affair to a nationwide monstrosity.
It's not until recently that socialism has become bold enough to make an obvious, outright bid on the national scale. Schools are one thing. The negative affects of our public school system are mitigated somewhat by the successful privatized school system that competes with it. It is another thing entirely when you have the government buying parts of private, independent businesses.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 8:09pm on October 22nd, 2008
I had to add one more thing, well two.
1. Your hero, Sarah Palin apparently wants to change the Constitution and make the Vice President "In charge of the Congress", or she just doesn't know the job. I don't know which scares me more; Palin wanting to expand the powers of the executive branch, or her being an idiot.
2. You love to throw the word "socialist" around. So you should look at the most socialistic Governor in the United States...Sarah Palin. Thats right..... Sarah Palin likes to "spread the wealth around" of the oil companies in Alaska. Now that, MY FRIEND, is socialism.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 6:42am on October 23rd, 2008
I thought we were going to hold this off till the election? Either way. I'll be gathering facts, post when I can.
One observation off the bat, though: If Sarah Palin is such a socialist, then why are liberals and socialists so violently opposed to her as a fierce conservative? Not very consistent...Anyhow, my full response to follow.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 3:20pm on October 25th, 2008
Shes a fierce conservative when it comes to religious issues. However, she is a socialist.(By your definition)...hahahahahahahaha!!!
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 4:44pm on October 25th, 2008
There is a difference. When I have the time, I'll explain it.
What Is a Socialist?
To answer, who better to ask than the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) of America? This party is the oldest socialist party in America, and the second oldest in the world. It was founded in 1876. According to the SLP, socialism would form a “classless society” and would “abolish the labor market”. American Socialist Daniel De Leon said that socialism “is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end.”
Class in America is defined primarily by income. People are grouped, roughly, by how much they make on a yearly basis. If we are to make a system with no social class, then it follows that you must eliminate the differences in the class. Logically, one class=one income=redistribution of wealth.
“Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.” And, “Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions.” So, Socialism means government control of the economy, assisted by democratic unions.
What Did Palin Do?
Palin raised the taxes on oil companies in Alaska, and forwarded much of that money to the people of Alaska. The tax rate on the North Slope, for example, went from 22.5% to 25%. Note, that royalties and taxes are lumped together here for accounting reasons, but are not actually the same thing.
Alaska has no state sales or income taxes. None at all. That means not on the poor, not on the rich, not on anybody. Regardless of what you make, you are taxed at exactly the same rate: 0%.
What does Obama propose?
He proposes nearly doubling the capital gains tax (from 15% to 28%) and that he will raise taxes on CEO’s (meaning, in context, on the rich)
He says he will “spread the wealth around” because when this happens, everyone wins. Most famously with his conversation with ‘Joe the Plumber’, but he says things similar to this on many occasions. For instance, he has said that we must pay attention not only to “growing the pie” but also to “how the pie is sliced” in an interview with the WSJ.
Who will pay attention to how the pie is sliced? Obviously, according to Obama, it isn’t working to let it slice itself. The answer, if you think about it, is clear: The government.
What does this mean?
Palin did in fact raise taxes on oil companies. This was, in my estimation, a poor move, though an understandable one. This is in line with what is happening around the globe. I would like that she instead would have made her state an exception, because that would have fostered more growth, but I digress. Does this fill either of the two qualifications of socialist outlined above? Redistributing wealth by taxing the rich and giving to the poor? No. In fact, Palin has spoken out against this type of tax policy multiple times. Direct government control of the economy & resources? No.
How about on the other side, with our friend Obama? Raising taxes on the rich while simultaneously giving breaks and checks to the poor? Check. Direct government control of the economy? Perhaps. His stance on unions, for instance, is very much in line with the socialist agenda.
Did Palin make a poor choice in raising the tax? I would say yes. Does that make her a socialist? Not even close.
Sources: Ontheissues.org, SLP party website, WSJ
Also Snopes.com and Palinfactcheck.com
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:57am on October 27th, 2008
I fail to see the difference in your comparison other than, "Palin is my girl so shes not a socialist, I don't like Obama so he is."
There is no difference.
I fail to see how raising the tax people pay on money they earn above $250,000 by 4% is socialism. Your rationale is flawed.
Socialism is essentially a 100% tax paid by all, that the government evenly passes out to all citizens. I fail to see the correlation.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:13am on October 27th, 2008
You have a very narrow view of socialism, and it's steps. Obviously, in order to achieve true socialism, you must walk there. We aren't going to wake up one day and suddenly all convert. Redistributing wealth (taxing the rich in order to provide for the poor) in order to drain the upper classes, and the mentality that backs this philosophy, is a component of the socialist system.
Saying that raising this tax isn't working towards socialism is like saying: A house isn't painted until it's 100% covered with paint! All I'm doing is dipping the roller and applying a little bit over here! I'm not really painting!
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:23am on October 27th, 2008
That's ridiculous, you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. And Palin hasn't taken those steps? What about McCain's plan to buy all the failed mortgages? By your conspiracy theory, they are all Socialist!
Quick its time for a McCarthy like "expose".
THE REDS ARE COMING!!!!!!!! Aaaaaaggghhhhhh!!!!!
FEAR EVERYTHING!!!!
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 11:55am on October 27th, 2008
McCain/Palin: "The redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now."
Obama: "When you spread the wealth around, everybody wins!"
Those two statements are very different. Is it just me? Am I the only one who can see the difference there?
Since Obama and McCain both supported the mortgage bailout (I won't go into details on the varying degrees of support for the sake of time), no one can win there. McCain caved to political pressure, much as the rest of Congress did. A giant leap forward for socialism, but since it was a collective leap, it is difficult to draw distinctions.
It's like this: There is a cliff our country is going towards, called socialism. McCain, in true center of the road fashion, is not really heading strongly one way or the other. Obama, on the other hand, is putting the pedal to the metal, and wants to add some nitro boosters to our engine to make it over that cliff just a little bit faster.
Do you deny that redistribution of wealth is the goal of socialism? If you don't deny this, then do you deny that taxing the rich at a much higher rate in the interests of "fairness, not revenue", is moving towards that goal at breakneck speeds?
If you deny the first, you aren't listening to the stated aims of self-avowed socialists. If you accept the first but deny the second, you aren't peering far enough into the future to see the destination that these decisions are taking us. If you accept both, then the rest follows.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 12:50pm on October 27th, 2008
Okay, so McCain/Palin are lying about their record. Not that thats anything new.
I don't classify raising taxes on income made over $250,000 by 4%, and thats just the income made over $250,000. Obama made a poor choice of words, I won't deny that... but I do not see it as redistributing the wealth, and I definitely don't see it as socialism. The money is going to go to bettering out country like infrastructure, better schools, and health care.
You republicans always try to paint democrats of today as if the party is the same as it was in the 60's. It is not. I, and most democrats today, do not support welfare.
Now you are trying to scare people in voting for McCain by throwing out socialism. Thats all Republicans have these days is fear. It worked for them well in 2004, but Americans I hope, are just a little bit smarter now.
I rather have a socialist (by your definition) in the white house, than an idiot who thinks they know God's plan.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 2:07pm on October 27th, 2008
A Republican? Now now, no need for name calling! Those guys are spineless and have lost their way since Reagan passed. I only side with them because it's the best option I've got, most of the time. Sad, but true.
Socialism is a very real problem. It has taken over in Europe. It's not some fairy tale. You say we are only taking 4% more. Just 4%. They already pay 35% of their money to the government. How much is enough? Will 45%, 50%, 70% be enough? Perhaps, instead of simply taxing success, we should cut out things that aren't as important so that we can pay for those things that are. Perhaps, instead of trusting the government to solve all our problems, we should rely on the same private industry that has made us the greatest nation on the planet.
You say you do not support welfare, and yet Obama and your party wish to protect Social Security, a massively bloated program that vaccuums our budget better than a Dyson. You say that, and yet Obama and your party strongly support Universal (read: Socialized) medicine. If getting something for nothing from the government is welfare, what else would Socialized medicine be?
I would take someone who prays openly that our leaders might know and follow God's plan (she did not claim to know it herself, if you are referring to the Wasilla AoG address) any day of the week. Our nation was founded on faith, and we should not fear those who still have it.
You are quick to call Palin a religious idiot, and yet you accuse me of throwing out terms to scare Americans? I simply call Obama's theories what they are. Information shouldn't be frightening. If it is, then maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for that.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 3:30pm on October 27th, 2008
I call Palin an idiot, but that has nothing to do with her religion.
Obama is not a supporter of socialized medicine. Thats Hillary Cliinton.
As for our country being founded on faith, yes very loosely it was. however you should look into Mr. Jefferson and his thoughts on the seperation of Church and State.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 5:03pm on October 27th, 2008
Obama is a proponent of Universal Health Care. To support this, I bring two quotes out of dozens: One, when asked if health care was a right or a responsibility, he answered “Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours…”
In a speech in April (according to CBS news) he said that Democrats “need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values”
Socialized Medicine, strictly speaking, is the government paying for and providing all healthcare (also known as single payer healthcare). Universal healthcare is where everyone has coverage to pay for care.
Since it is said that Universal Healthcare is not the current condition, and more government control is required to get it there, that means that you are going to have the government pay for some portion of expenses for poorer Americans. And when we say the government will pay, we of course actually mean the taxpayer will pay. Since the government gets the vast majority of its money from the wealthy, that means that, whether they like it or not, one American who is more successful will be taxed to pay for the healthcare of another American who is not. Kinda sucks to be successful, huh?
That doesn’t seem so bad though, right? I mean, who wouldn’t want their fellow man to have coverage? It’s not like it’s going to cost them that much. The problem arises when you attempt to execute this principle.
What is the desired effect? To lower the price of a good/service for certain individuals. Ideally, you won’t have also lowered the value or cost of said service. So, you will be having hospitals and doctors providing a service and charging less than the market value. Someone has to recover that difference, unless you want the hospitals to run themselves into the ground. Who will it be? The answer: The taxpayer.
It gets worse. Because these people can now use a service without paying an equitable price, it is easy to see they will not be as careful in its consumption.
To illustrate: Joe has to pay $80 to see the doctor. Joe has a case of the sniffles. Joe will probably not see the doctor, because the cost ($80) is more than the perceived value of said visit. Then the government steps in and tells Joe he only has to pay $30. The next time Joe has an ailment, because the cost it lower, he is much more likely to use the service, even though he probably doesn’t –need- it. Thousands of Joes will now clog the system, putting less money into it than they are taking out.
Then you have skyrocketing costs, higher taxes, a less efficient (due to greater volume with no more profits) system, murder in the streets, Human sacrifice…Alright, probably not the last two. But the first three? I think so.
In summary: Universal Healthcare isn’t technically Socialized Medicine. It still ends up with much the same effect. Except with Universal Healthcare they can blame the private sector for the bad things that happen.
Then again, for a while, Auntie Em will be able to get that hip replacement she might not have been able to afford otherwise. Allowing people to have things they can’t really afford worked great with Fannie Mae, right? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 11:34pm on October 27th, 2008
Earned Income Tax Credit...look it up...you might be very surprised by who started that program.
I'm sorry but as soon as I saw "Joe" I stopped reading. I hate Joe. Joe has dumbed down America.
One more note I thought was interesting that I notice tonight while driving around.
It seems to be, generally speaking, that the people who would actually pay more taxes under Obama's plan support him, while the people who would benefit from his plan do not.
I guess to go back to "why I am voting democrat" I would say that I realize that we are a society, dependent on each other, and what happens to my neighbor, affects me. Politics isn't black and white, there are are many shades of grey.
Its not a matter of Capitalism Vs. Socialism, its about finding the right balance which is something we have always tried to do. Even your hero, Ronald Reagan.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 7:17am yesterday
"People who would actually pay more taxes under Obama's plan support him".
Not so. Actually, in poll conducted by Chief Executive Magazine, CEO's favored McCain 80%, over Obama's 20%. That's 4-to-1 against Obama. As if that wasn't enough, 69% polled said they feared Obama. If you prefer letters to numbers, the tax policy rating for McCain was B-. Obama, D. I guess that's technically still passing though, right?
Now, for posterity, I will repost a portion of my former comment, editing out the word "Joe" for those of you with sensitive constitutions.
To illustrate: Snuffy has to pay $80 to see the doctor. Snuffy has a case of the sniffles. Snuffy will probably not see the doctor, because the cost ($80) is more than the perceived value of said visit. Then the government steps in and tells Snuffy he only has to pay $30. The next time Snuffy has an ailment, because the cost it lower, he is much more likely to use the service, even though he probably doesn’t –need- it. Thousands of Snuffies will now clog the system, putting less money into it than they are taking out.
Balance between Capitalism and Socialism? Reagan? The same man who on his very first address as President decried the size of the Federal Government, pledged to curb it, and reminded us that "The States created the Federal Government, the Federal Government did not create the States"?
Do a search of various Socialist sites, get their opinion on Reagan, and you'll very quickly find that Reagan was no friend of their movement. As much as Capitalists love him, Socialists hate him. Hardly what you would expect if he had sought "balance" with the antithesis of the Free Market.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 9:56am yesterday
You make me sound like I support socialism, I do not. Why would I support a failed system? See: USSR circa 1990.
Now pure capitalism has failed as well. Even Allen Greenspan has admitted that less regulation is what has failed us.
I am for a mixed economy. A few essential services offered by the government. (Military, Police, Education, and yes I differ from Obama on this and that I am for Socialized Medicine)
But by and large, I am for a capitalist economy.
Please don't start another debate about health care, thats just my personal opinion. haha.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 4:41pm yesterday
Pure capitalism? I love it! We ought to try it sometime. As it is, the Federal government cannot seem to keep their hands off of our markets. Granted, they do it much less than many other governments in the world, which is why we are the most successful. Unfortunately, however, they still subscribe to Keynesian economics.
Keynes was not a Free Market Capitalist, as we know it today. In a 1926 lecture entitled “The End of Laissez-Faire”, he argued that “It is not true that individuals possess a prescriptive 'natural liberty' in their economic activities. There is no 'compact' conferring perpetual rights on those who Have or on those who Acquire. Nor could it be presumed that private individuals pursuing their enlightened self-interest would always serve the common good.” This differs from Free Market ideology, in that we tend to trust that individuals acting in their best interest will benefit the group as a whole. He also argued for “a return, it may be said, towards mediaeval conceptions of separate [corporate] autonomies.” But instead of these corporate entities' being left to their own profit-making purposes, Keynes proposed semi-monopolistic structures that would operate under government approval and with government supervision. [Source: www.fff.org]
This is where we get organizations such as the Federal Reserve, which exerts control on interest rates and whose members are appointed by the government. It is also spawned the plethora of government regulation on the market.
Our economy is not government controlled, but it is not free, either. Massive amounts of regulation go into every aspect of industry. Despite claims to the contrary, the mortgage industry was heavily regulated (the banning of redlining, for example). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also prime examples of government interference. These were GSEs, or Government Sponsored Entities.
How exactly these regulations and businesses affected the market I won’t go into just yet, but the fact remains that they were a Government backed entities playing in the private market. A far cry from pure capitalism.
I would endorse a mixed economy as you put it, except my definitions of mixed and essential differ significantly from yours. The military, as per the Constitution, is the responsibility of the government. I am also willing to give them Police, and even roads (though that I would leave up to the states to decide). In the market, they would be limited to the barest possible amount. Things like punishing outright fraud and false advertising, and perhaps some basic public safety regulation, would fall to the government. Not much more than that. Healthcare, education, and the veritable swarm of smaller government agencies, are not mentioned in the Constitution, and have no place in our federal government.
Allow the competitive free market to reign, and everyone who is willing to work for it can be a winner.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:48pm yesterday
Personally, I would term education and health care as essential.
I wouldn't be graduating from college a month from now if I had to pay to go to elementary and high school.
As for health care I will give you this example, and I know you can find similar ones from the other side, I guess it just depends on your interactions with that healthcare system. But anyways, we have three British guys working for free at my campaign office. I don't mean, British Americans, I mean Brits. They came here a month ago, are living on someone's couch and working 16 hours a day, for free, to elect Barack Obama. Their motives are simply that they believe John McCain would be a disaster for the world, but that mostly has to do with foreign policy, and I digress.
Anyways, I've seen Sicko which showed the English Health Care System in a very good light, and I've heard the horror stories from the other side of 8 hour waits and not getting decent care. All three of them, thought our system was absolutely ridiculous, and they had never had to wait more than 30 minutes and always had decent care. I've waited more than an hour before for scheduled appointments.
Excuse my grammatical errors and poor sentence structure. I usually type these things quick and don't proofread.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 8:12am
"Personally, I would term education and health care as essential."
Allow me to rephrase. I think education and health care are not essential as government functions.
"I wouldn't be graduating from college a month from now if I had to pay to go to elementary and high school."
You say that because you look at the cost of current private schools, and think you could have never paid that. The problem is there is that the markets aren't being allowed to work. The "low end" education market is completely cornered by the government. The only thing left for private business is the high end market.
Imagine if the education system, as a public entity, in America were abolished (and the taxes that were used to pay for this program were refunded to the people). This would leave a gaping void in the education strata of America. Into that void would flow private enterprise.
What you'd end up with is much like what we have with grocery or department stores. You'd have your lower end "Wal-Mart" brand schooling. These woudl cater to poorer Americans, like every other mass producing business does. Then you'd have your Kohl's, your Targets, on up to the Macy's and higher.
In every other area of selling, the product adapts in capabilities and expense to meet the needs of the consumer. That is how they make a profit. Obviously, if no one can afford their product, they aren't going to make much money, are they? Competition would drive down prices and drive up quality. Suddenly, if you don't like the teachers in a certain school, you simply move them to a competing school. Violence in a certain district? Their business would plummet, giving them incentive to prevent it.
These are the very same principles that work in EVERY other kind of product. From restaurants to hardware stores, from auto dealers to Tonka trucks, these principles work. Why is it they would not work here?
All of the above doesn't even take into account Homeschooling, an option that is low cost and personal. The options are there, though the government wants you to think they're not.
For socialized healthcare, I give you this website: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
Page upon page upon page of story from Canada, Britain, and others, decrying the policies of socialized health care.
Two observations: Why is it, if health care is supposedly free and fabulous, citizens who can afford it still purchase private insurance and seek health from private doctors?
And to counter your three Brits, there is a British couple that just joined my church. They moved to America because they needed surgery for the wife...Wait...Couldn't they have gotten that cheaper through the UK system? Hmmm...Must be a reason.
Speaking more generally, two things. First, is there a single thing, just ONE thing, the government does well? Anything at all? Anything you can name that they do more efficiently with a better product that the private sector? I certainly can't think of anything. Government waste is a given in every situation. Why would healthcare be any different? Why on earth would we want to give them even MORE responsibility, when they can't even handle the responsibilities we've already given them?
Secondly, let's assume for a moment that the government would make an exception here, and run things beautifully. I would still be against it, and here is why: Control. The costs of health care would be on everyone. Meaning, my name Fred has to foot part of the bill for my heart condition, and vice versa. Why should this bother you?
As it stands now, if I choose to do something that is poor for my health, who suffers? Me, possibly my family, possibly my company. But since I pay the cash for it, it really isn't anyone else's business.
What happens when everyone is paying for it? Suddenly, it IS their business. Everything you do that could affect your health would then be subject to scrutiny in the public place. It would start small with things people might support: No more smoking (drain on the system)...
It wouldn't take long for it to move further. Mandatory excersize (it's good for you!) Still not horrible? Diet restrictions, work restrictions, living restrictions (Stress affects health too!) Just stop and think about the power you are giving the government, just think for a moment. You are about to open a door and give them a way to directly control every decision you ever make about ANYTHING. Anything at all. If it touches your health, that they are paying for, they will have the right to regulate it.
You think they can't stretch that provision that far? Just look at how far they've taken the "interstate commerce" clause.
That should be frightening. It ought to paralyze any American with fear, in fact. It certainly does me.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:11am
I only had time to read your education part so I will respond to just that.
If only the rich get to go to good schools, then only the rich get better. Our nation lags so far behind the rest of the modern world in education that we have to bring scientists in from other countries. They are not loyal to us, they are loyal to the money we pay them. We stop paying, they go home and share their information with their own country. Free Market education would be the dumbing and eventual death of America.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:29am
I know you are arguing against it, but your post looks more like an endorsement of private schooling, until you get to the last sentence.
- Only the rich will get to go to the "designer" schools...That's the way it is now! The poor would be confined to schools they can afford...That's what we do now! The difference is that these schools would ALL be privately run.
- "Our nation lags behind the rest of the modern world in education." Yes, it does. What is the system we use now? Government sponsored and controlled education. As you point out, it's not working all that well. If anything, this is an indication that what we need is LESS of that, not more.
When you introduce competition into any area, you drive down prices. That is just basic economics. At the very worst, privately run schools would be on par with the government run system we have now. More likely, since the private sector is more efficient, they would be able to do more with less, and would achieve more.
Their funding (aka, their business) would depend solely on results. No results=no business. Poorly run schools, or schools that didn't achieve results, would be rightly crushed by their competitors. The schools that provided a better product (aka, better education) at the same price would thrive. This is how the market works, if only you let it. Free Market Education, as with Free Market Anything, would lead to a more productive work force.
Eric Kendall (George Mason) wrote
at 10:45am
I'm not so sure competition is the right idea. I don't have time to go look at sources, but I wonder what kind of school system they have in the countries that lead in education.
Jordan D. Karim wrote
at 10:50am
That's a good point, and would bear investigating. I would contend (and I'd have to do more research) that regardless of what system they use, I am unaware of any nation that has attempted a completely private system of education. I have a hard time believing that Free Market economics, which works in every other sector, would fail here.
Post a Comment