Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012?

Page 8 of 9 [ 137 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Which one do you prefer?

Mitt Romney	7%	[ 4 ]
Rick Perry	7%	[ 4 ]
Michele Bachmann	2%	[ 1 ]
Jon Huntsman	15%	[ 8 ]
Newt Gingrich	2%	[ 1 ]
Ron Paul	22%	[ 12 ]
Rick Santorum	0%	[ 0 ]
Herman Cain	7%	[ 4 ]
Sarah Palin	2%	[ 1 ]
Buddy Roemer	2%	[ 1 ]
Rush Limbaugh	0%	[ 0 ]
Elmer Fudd	9%	[ 5 ]
Porky Pig	2%	[ 1 ]
Inuyasha	20%	[ 11 ]
Other (specify)	4%	[ 2 ]

Total votes : 55

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

15 Sep 2011, 8:34 am

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Sep 2011, 9:01 am

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Unreliable and currently insufficient. Many communities struggle just to keep the food pantry stocked. Do people really believe that charitable organizations will suddenly be able to absorb tremendously high medical bills?! Red bucket campaigns and a couple of bucks in basket on Sunday ain't gonna cut it.

Really, I think the charity argument is just a way for people to avoid feeling so guilty when they say f*ck 'em.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

15 Sep 2011, 9:15 am

While I agree, what some will say is that smaller companies will balance the problem by deindustrializing the food industry. Big business isn't exactly out to keep people healthy, just sell something people need or think they need. A return to farmer's markets and local growing really could benefit the health industry by cutting costs, because you don't have as much artificial crap going into the food. This is a relatively non-controversial assumption, since we've technically already gone through this period. It was only after the corpratization of food that the FDA was created. In some respect, staunch conservatives have only themselves to blame for the existence of certain institutions they don't like. The FDA and EPA are two such organizations, among many others.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Sep 2011, 9:39 am

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

15 Sep 2011, 9:49 am

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

I tend to agree with you (I think the public/private partnership is Cronyism at best and Fascism at worst)
Although I have no problem with outright socialization of certain sectors.
It is the mixing in my opinion that give rise to graft.
Do we have a model for free market medicine?
It can not be historical country doctor scenario (cuz stuff has changed).
The pharmacies/clinics on the Mexican Border are a start but I would
like to see an example of a first world country that runs medicine as a "free" market.
Our mixed market approach gives us the highest costs and 36th best outcomes.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

15 Sep 2011, 10:06 am

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

The government only steps in when it thinks there is a problem. restrictions were put on medicine to prevent gauging, medical malpractice, collusion and other things. None of these are good, so the government should have stepped in. As for costs, the medical industry is not devoid of profit incentives. They want to make money like everybody else. This will lead them to try to do so in any way they see possible, including methods that seem unconscionable to the rest of us, like making up diseases to sell medication. Also, I don't think it's helpful to refer to 'the government' as though it were an individual. It's a collection of people and institutions that all have differing views about the country and even itself. It's not something that ever holds one opinion.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Sep 2011, 10:16 am

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

I see 2 problems with that statement.

1. It's irrelevant to the fact that current costs are high. So, even if you are 100% correct, it doesn't change the fact that charities still would be unable to absorb these costs, leaving people to go go untreated and/or die. This evasion technique is also quite popular with Ron Paul. You can't solve one problem simply by pointing out another.

2. As I think Jakob was trying to point out, it's a theory. We have current examples of socialized systems that work much better than ours, but where are the modern day, working, free market examples?

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Sep 2011, 10:35 am

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Real conservatives don't feel guilty because they don't beleive in any of that sentimental tripe. Real conservatives believe in personal responsibility (TM). In other words don't get sick, and if you do get sick make sure you're rich.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Sep 2011, 10:45 am

It's not a theory, it's a fact. The free market drives prices down and quality up. Lasik eye surgery, boob jobs, and other cosmetic procedures are perfect examples of this in our very own country. The prices on these procedures go down every year, the quality is always going up, and they're more available now than ever.

I'm glad Jakob recognized that we have neither free market or socialized medicine in this country, what we have is evil corporatist medicine which is the worst of the worst.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Sep 2011, 10:58 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

A socially responsible private insurance industry would have to discount premiums based on income and encourage rather than discourage preventive care. Unfortunately I don't think this is possible without government being involved. Because of the high amount of payout involved, health insurance will never be affordable to all at a low rate like car insurance. Another problem is the uninsured drive up costs for the insured at hospitals because they have to recoup the revenue lost from those who don't pay. The only good solution is to make sure everyone is insured. A truly "free-market" system would refuse care to those who can't afford it, and society has already deemed that unacceptable.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Sep 2011, 11:25 am

marshall wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

That's simply not true. Harkening back to the original quote this thread was made about, when Ron Paul was doctor in San Antonio in the early 60s, nobody was refused care and this was before Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, and all that junk. There has never been a time in this country where people were left to die in the streets.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Sep 2011, 11:29 am

Jacoby wrote:

Cosmetic procedures are very different from necessary medical care. They are well suited for the free market and I'm unaware of any system that socializes these procedures, although there certainly are some variances regarding medical necessity.

Until there exists a working model of a free market system that provides medically necessary care, then yes, it's still just a theory.

I do agree that we currently have the worst scenario of a corporate/government structure. The question then is what do we do about it. Some countries, and even U.S. states have it somewhat figured out (Vermont has a single payer-system and also ranks #1 in the country for quality/access of care). They cover all their people and get a decent bag for their buck. The states that oppose government intervention seem to display a very poor picture of care with respect to quality and access (Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama).

Maybe a nationwide, government plan isn't the answer. Maybe it does need to be tackled on a smaller scale, but I think socialization of the system is absolutely necessary if the goal is to have all citizens covered.

And none of this addresses the initial claim that charities can absorb these costs.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Sep 2011, 11:39 am

Jacoby wrote:

marshall wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

Medical costs probably wouldn't be so tremendously high if the government stayed out of medicine entirely. The same can said with pretty much everything the government interferes in.

Actually, there was a time. One particular case was when the brother of author Thomas Mann, just after the Second World War, had rushed his wife who had had a drug overdose from hospital to hospital, and each denied his check because he looked like an impoverished, shabby foreigner. She died because no doctors would help her.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Sep 2011, 12:06 pm

Jacoby wrote:

There has never been a time in this country where people were left to die in the streets.

It's estimated that about 45,000 deaths/year in the U.S. are directly linked to lack of insurance. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/

Now you can nitpick and say that these people don't literally die on the streets, but they still die from preventable causes. When a person dies from something like hypertension, it's not much a consolation prize to know that they died in the ER vs. outside on the curb.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,532
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

15 Sep 2011, 12:09 pm

Jacoby wrote:

It's not a theory, it's a fact. The free market drives prices down and quality up. Lasik eye surgery, boob jobs, and other cosmetic procedures are perfect examples of this in our very own country.

Along with the ever-increasing quality and keen eyesight of our strippers! :salut:

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

15 Sep 2011, 10:17 pm

marshall wrote:

number5 wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

Community based non-profit groups do not have the power to levy taxes. Therefore the poor will go without emergency medical treatment under a Libertarian regime.

You assume no one will contribute. You would prefer theft and force?

ruveyn

I think what they mean is that donations are unreliable.

And this is why they'd never get elected if they didn't lie to all the poor people who vote for them. The vast majority of the country does not believe this.

Page 8 of 9 [ 137 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012? Post Reply New Topic

Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012?