"Obamacare"

[Perseus]

First off, I hate that term.

But anyway, should America have universal(even though how pathetic what we are getting is) healthcare? Is it a terrible thing and encourage people to not work?

[Amnesiac]

The government should offer (but not mandate) its own health insurance (also known as the "public option"). I don't support the "everybody has to buy private insurance!" version of Obamacare that was passed.

[Korashk]

First off, I hate that term.

But anyway, should America have universal(even though how pathetic what we are getting is) healthcare?

No, healthcare is a service provided by skilled individuals who should be able to offer or withhold that service at their own discretion for a price or for no price.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

The government should offer (but not mandate) its own health insurance (also known as the "public option"). I don't support the "everybody has to buy private insurance!" version of Obamacare that was passed.

Why do you feel that way?

[Perseus]

No, healthcare is a service provided by skilled individuals who should be able to offer or withhold that service at their own discretion for a price or for no price.

Why? If someone is dying and they can't afford their medical bill, then they are essentially fucked because they'd have so much debt.

[Amnesiac]

Why do you feel that way?

I don't like the idea of the government forcing people to buy health insurance and putting limitations on what health insurers can do. Some of it makes sense, but overall it's a bit intrusive into the private sector and it doesn't do enough to help those who can't afford it. Government-provided health insurance would give those who can't afford private insurance the opportunity to buy it while letting those who want premium coverage get that through a private insurer.

[dead]

Why? If someone is dying and they can't afford their medical bill, then they are essentially fucked because they'd have so much debt.

Most hospitals wont do anything if they know you dont have health insurance

[Perseus]

Most hospitals wont do anything if they know you dont have health insurance

I know, which is terrible.

[TopGear]

I don't like the idea of the government forcing people to buy health insurance and putting limitations on what health insurers can do. Some of it makes sense, but overall it's a bit intruding into the private sector and it doesn't do enough to help those who can't afford it. Government-provided health insurance would give those who can't afford private insurance the opportunity to buy it while letting those who want premium coverage get that through a private insurer.

Exactly, No better way of putting it. Don't think I could of said it any better

[Amnesiac]

Exactly, No better way of putting it. Don't think I could of said it any better

Well, I wanna correct a couple of things. I should've put "intrusive" instead of "intruding".

Also, when I said

Government-provided health insurance would give those who can't afford private insurance the opportunity to buy it

I meant it would give those who can't afford private insurance the opportunity to have free basic coverage.

[Korashk]

Why? If someone is dying and they can't afford their medical bill, then they are essentially fucked because they'd have so much debt.

Yep, and that sucks for them.

[Perseus]

Yep, and that sucks for them.

You didn't answer my "why" part.

[Korashk]

You didn't answer my "why" part.

I'm against forcing people who aren't criminals to do things.

[Perseus]

I'm against forcing people who aren't criminals to do things.

Fair enough, but having the option isn't really forcing.

[TopGear]

I meant it would give those who can't afford private insurance the opportunity to have free basic coverage.

Well If thats what it came down to then, I would be fine with that, But forcing everyone to accept this and take it, Will the president himself accept this kind of treatment too?

Im Sure that he will have his own personal private Hospital floor with golden everything if he would ever need medical help.

I myself Do not like this at all, because I am blessed to have parents that have worked there asses off to get where there at and to have one of the best health care coverages from my parents work. I would be upset, If anything would to happen and Im stuck with this SHIT that the GOVERNMENT FORCED onto my family. He (as in the President) Needs to keep his eyes out of our business about how we keep our healthcare.

[Amnesiac]

Well If thats what it came down to then, I would be fine with that, But forcing everyone to accept this and take it, Will the president himself accept this kind of treatment too?

Im Sure that he will have his own personal private Hospital floor with golden everything if he would ever need medical help.

I myself Do not like this at all, because I am blessed to have parents that have worked there asses off to get where there at and to have one of the best health care coverages from my parents work. I would be upset, If anything would to happen and Im stuck with this SHIT that the GOVERNMENT FORCED onto my family. He (as in the President) Needs to keep his eyes out of our business about how we keep our healthcare.

Don't just blame Obama. It's both parties. The liberals wanted the public option, but the Republicans and some conservative Democrats forced them to water it down to subsidization and forced private insurance. The Republicans made pretty much every modification to the bill they wanted, and they still didn't vote for it. The president passed it so he could cross "healthcare reform" off his list — he should've sent it back, it's not nearly good enough.

[TopGear]

Yes, I agree that both party's are to blame for this right now a money wasting bill, but He was the one Who was main stream and in the american face pushing for it, So kinda get what you deserve since he rushed it though and didn't get it the way it needed to be so it will actually help the ones who need help and leave the people who are fine with out government assistants off on there own. I really do hope that we have learned from this bill and realize that he is forcing things down our throats.

[Korashk]

Fair enough, but having the option isn't really forcing.

Not in and of itself, but how would this healthcare be funded?

Taxes, which is forcing people to do things. It's very hard to offer a government service without taxes and taxes is just a synonym for legal theft.

[TopGear]

Exactly, Legal theft at its best! And that 13 trillion deficit that we have now, Forget about lowering that. That SOB is going to sky rocket.

[Amnesiac]

Taxes, which is forcing people to do things. It's very hard to offer a government service without taxes and taxes is just a synonym for legal theft.

Without taxes, there would be no government. Without government, there would be anarchy. You're never going to escape from taxes, they're the things that give you roads, schools, fire protection, police, airports, bus systems, Medicare and Medicaid, postal service, power lines, phone lines, Internet infrastructure and a billion other things.

Don't complain about taxes.

[TopGear]

Yes your right, but does this seem to fit into any of those above catorgories? I don't think so.

Also what do you think the entire T.E.A party is based off. That is an entire political party about stopping unless taxing.

[Amnesiac]

Yes your right, but does this seem to fit into any of those above catorgories? I don't think so.

Also what do you think the entire T.E.A party is based off. That is an entire political party about stopping unless taxing.

The Tea Party is a faction of the Republican Party. It's not its own official political party, and I doubt it's organized enough to congregate into one.

If the government provides police and fire protection, it's only reasonable that it should provide its own medical coverage as well. Thus, the public option. How would we pay for it? There are plenty of ways: trimming the budget, raising taxes, introducing a sales tax, ect. The problem is, the U.S. has waited much too long to introduce such a large change; America's driven itself into this problem of an "unsustainable" healthcare system with continuously rising prices.

[TopGear]

There you go, you said it yourself:

"The problem is, the U.S. has waited much too long to introduce such a large change; America's driven itself into this problem of an "unsustainable" healthcare system with continuously rising prices."

[Amnesiac]

There you go, you said it yourself:

"The problem is, the U.S. has waited much too long to introduce such a large change; America's driven itself into this problem of an "unsustainable" healthcare system with continuously rising prices."

Well, you have a situation. The price of health insurance continues to rise, and more and more American citizens are finding themselves totally without coverage or with extremely shitty coverage. As a result, people are falling ill and dying.

The proper solution is to follow the example almost every other developed nation has set by introducing government-provided health insurance alongside private insurance. This keeps the healthcare industry free of intervention while providing those who can't afford private insurance the coverage they need to survive.

Just because the U.S. has wasted over 40 years bitching about healthcare doesn't mean creating a government-provided option is impossible. It just makes it very difficult and expensive. However, it's not like we really have any other choice. It's doable with the right combination of budget modifications and taxes, however, what Congress and Obama have passed is nowhere near the right plan.

[TopGear]

Or people realize that if you want something you work for it, Sorry im tired of government hand outs there, here, everywhere. Health care was working fine before he passed this bill. More people are going to be hurt from this bill then I will better. heres a link and please tell me what you think of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Please watch.

Also found a great quote that fits this topic well, Comes from one of the greatest man that has ever lived in this country.

"Any society that would give up a little LIBERTY to gain little SECURITY will deserve neither and LOSE BOTH!"
~Benjamin Franklin

[Amnesiac]

Or people realize that if you want something you work for it, Sorry im tired of government hand outs there, here, everywhere. Health care was working fine before he passed this bill.

I don't think people should have to work for protection from injury. Every person falls sick or gets injured at least once in their life. They should be protected from that. Saying people should work for basic things like healthcare is equivalent to saying they should work for clean water, or food, or fire protection.

Also, the healthcare system was NOT fine before the bill was passed. I refer to these graphs:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Health_care_cost_rise.svg

More people are going to be hurt from this bill then I will better. heres a link and please tell me what you think of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Please watch.

I can't watch the video right now, but I don't like this bill either.

[Number02]

Just throwing a match under the firewood, here, but.. Would anyone seriously complain if Obama got the full thing through? I mean, come on. Free health care for those who need it, and that includes everyone, even those below the poverty line (for the record, I'd happily punch whoever said 'sucks for them' in the face), with the price of a slightly increased public tax?

I'm sorry, but I really don't see what's wrong with that idea.

I'd also like to point out, a number of my (British) family have suffered cancer, been treated on the NHS, and came out fine on the other end. Neither does the NHS have 'death panels', and Stephen Hawking (born in Oxford, UK, btw) owes his life to the NHS.

I'm not saying that an NHS style system should replace the private sector, I'm sure private health care is good (it must be if you're clinging onto it that badly), but a safety net for the people who, for one reason or another can't afford private healthcare, is a very good thing. Don't be so cynical about your brothers and sisters.

[Korashk]

Without taxes, there would be no government.
That's where you're wrong. A friend of mine has thought of a system that has both a government and no taxes. It involves the government offering services to its citizens for a voluntary fee. You don't pay the fee, you don't get the service.

Without government, there would be anarchy.
So? I'm no anarchist but I do know a lot of them and their arguments are fairly decent. In fact, one of only complaint I have about anarchism is that, from my POV it won't remain an anarchy.

You're never going to escape from taxes, they're the things that give you roads,
I'd much prefer if private companies handled that like they used to.

schools
Also would be better to be privately run. Cheaper and more effective.

fire protection
Again, private sector would handle it better.

police
This is one thing that should be run on a user-fee basis.

airports
Mostly private already.

bus systems
See above

Medicare and Medicaid
I'm against these programs entirely, should be basically turned into insurance.

postal service,
The companies that do this separate from the government are much, much better at it.

power lines, phone lines, Internet infrastructure and a billion other things.
Blah, blah. These are mostly private anyways.

Don't complain about taxes.
I think I will

[scuba steve]

The fact that hospitals in the U.S and Japan are more or less private businesses is something I don't agree with. To me the perfect healthcare is split in the middle of socialist and Capitalist values e.g U.S health care mixed with NHS.

NHS is completely free for everything when it comes down to even simple things like medicine, which is unnecessary. Although being charged for serious operations is just rediculous in the US.

[The Dark Lord]

That's where you're wrong. A friend of mine has thought of a system that has both a government and no taxes. It involves the government offering services to its citizens for a voluntary fee. You don't pay the fee, you don't get the service.


There's a reason why nobody has either heard of your friend nor adopted his plan

So? I'm no anarchist but I do know a lot of them and their arguments are fairly decent. In fact, one of only complaint I have about anarchism is that, from my POV it won't remain an anarchy.


What arguments are their in favour of anarchism?

[Amnesiac]

That's where you're wrong. A friend of mine has thought of a system that has both a government and no taxes. It involves the government offering services to its citizens for a voluntary fee. You don't pay the fee, you don't get the service.

Congratulations. You've turned the government into a corporation.

So? I'm no anarchist but I do know a lot of them and their arguments are fairly decent. In fact, one of only complaint I have about anarchism is that, from my POV it won't remain an anarchy.

Anarchism is the most unsustainable form of... "government" ever idealized. It's ridiculous. There are no arguments that can possibly support such a system.

I'd much prefer if private companies handled that like they used to.

Also would be better to be privately run. Cheaper and more effective.

Again, private sector would handle it better.

This is one thing that should be run on a user-fee basis.

Mostly private already.

See above

I'm against these programs entirely, should be basically turned into insurance.

The companies that do this separate from the government are much, much better at it.

Blah, blah. These are mostly private anyways.

The fact that you think the private sector is some sort of holy entity and that capitalism is a perfect system shows a complete lack of understanding of basic economics. Letting corporations control every sector of the economy, unregulated, would only lead to a twisted version of totalitarianism. Time and time again, the big corporations have shown their blind greed and lack of compassion. Regulation is key to a sustainable capitalist society. That's not debatable.

I think I will

Fine. But if your so-called great ideas ever come into action, the United States will be scarred for decades.

[TopGear]

Well the only thing we can do to change things that we want to see is to support and spread the word, until you can vote and then do that.

[Korashk]

Congratulations. You've turned the government into a corporation.
And made it much more efficient. I don't really support my friend's idea, though. I think taxes are a necessary evil that should be used to fund the military, courts, and police.

Anarchism is the most unsustainable form of... "government" ever idealized. It's ridiculous. There are no arguments that can possibly support such a system.
You literally used the exact same criticism that I did.

The fact that you think the private sector is some sort of holy entity and that capitalism is a perfect system shows a complete lack of understanding of basic economics.
I have a friend made of straw you might want to meet. Capitalism does not equal perfection. Capitalism equals liberty.

Letting corporations control every sector of the economy, unregulated, would only lead to a twisted version of totalitarianism. Time and time again, the big corporations have shown their blind greed and lack of compassion.
I have a feeling that you're referring to monopolies here. Did you know that the only monopolies that have ever existed, existed because of government intervention in the economy? You should also realize that corporations today are like that even with regulations. Greed drives the economy and fuels innovation.

Regulation is key to a sustainable capitalist society. That's not debatable.
You're half-right, it isn't debatable. If the economy is regulated by a government then it's not capitalism. You can have capitalism or you can have regulation.

Fine. But if your so-called great ideas ever come into action, the United States will be scarred for decades.
Too bad this is just speculation. One can't comment on the effectiveness of a system that has never been tried.

[Amnesiac]

And made it much more efficient. I don't really support my friend's idea, though. I think taxes are a necessary evil that should be used to fund the military, courts, and police.

I don't see how this could be more efficient. You're depriving citizens of basic services that every nation provides. How does privatizing education or something as essential as that help the economy? After all, we need an educated workforce, and many people can't afford to send their children to private school.

You literally used the exact same criticism that I did.

I never said I didn't agree with you.

I have a friend made of straw you might want to meet. Capitalism does not equal perfection. Capitalism equals liberty.

How can there be liberty in a fully capitalist society if it ultimately leads to the same type of world pure communism does — a society with no middle class?

I have a feeling that you're referring to monopolies here. Did you know that the only monopolies that have ever existed, existed because of government intervention in the economy?

Can you please explain how this is possible? (Also, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly).)

You should also realize that corporations today are like that even with regulations. Greed drives the economy and fuels innovation.

Unregulated, however, that greed can do much harm. Just look at... well, the healthcare system. You make it sound like you trust corporations to have compassion — they don't. It's all about money, and that can harm the people and the environment.

You're half-right, it isn't debatable. If the economy is regulated by a government then it's not capitalism. You can have capitalism or you can have regulation.

Then, by your definition, the United States is not a capitalist society. The mere fact that the Founding Fathers gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce and lay taxes, under your definition of capitalism, makes the U.S. a mixed economy.

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely "most" are in private hands —while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism.

Too bad this is just speculation. One can't comment on the effectiveness of a system that has never been tried.

Fine, but why attempt to destroy the present system when it's created the most powerful economy (after China) on Earth? Sure, the present U.S. economic model has some problems, but it's still incredibly productive and relatively healthy.

[Korashk]

I don't see how this could be more efficient. You're depriving citizens of basic services that every nation provides. How does privatizing education or something as essential as that help the economy? After all, we need an educated workforce, and many people can't afford to send their children to private school.
Nobody is depriving anyone anything. People would just stop receiving them for free.* Education would still be available, and it would be cheaper, Example (http://privateschool.about.com/cs/employment/a/teachingcond.htm). And provide a better education, Example (http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/5)

I never said I didn't agree with you.
True.

How can there be liberty in a fully capitalist society if it ultimately leads to the same type of world pure communism does — a society with no middle class?
What does the non-existence of a middle class have to do with whether or not an individual has liberty?

Can you please explain how this is possible? (Also, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly).)
No, but my friends over at Mises (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf) can. You should also note that the only example of a Natural Monopoly given by your source was a direct result of the British government regulating the water industry.

Unregulated, however, that greed can do much harm. Just look at... well, the healthcare system. You make it sound like you trust corporations to have compassion — they don't. It's all about money, and that can harm the people and the environment.
They don't have to be compassionate. They're offering a product/service for a price. You can pay that price and receive that good or service. Harming people would still be illegal, but refusing service does not constitute harm.

Then, by your definition, the United States is not a capitalist society. The mere fact that the Founding Fathers gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce and lay taxes, under your definition of capitalism, makes the U.S. a mixed economy.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Of course the United States isn't capitalist and I doubt it has ever been.

Fine, but why attempt to destroy the present system when it's created the most powerful economy (after China) on Earth? Sure, the present U.S. economic model has some problems, but it's still incredibly productive and relatively healthy.
Best is a relative term, and for me it isn't really about improving the economy (though, it likely would) so much as it is about maximizing individual liberty.

*I know it's not technically free

[Church]

No Government take-over of Healthcare, thank you. Our nation was founded on the idea of the voters choosing and the government being equal and not all powerful.

[Amnesiac]

Nobody is depriving anyone anything. People would just stop receiving them for free.* Education would still be available, and it would be cheaper, Example (http://privateschool.about.com/cs/employment/a/teachingcond.htm). And provide a better education, Example (http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/5)

I don't see how private education can be cheaper than free. You know as well as I do that there are thousands of families that rely on the government's free education system.


True.

What does the non-existence of a middle class have to do with whether or not an individual has liberty?

It results in a classic aristocratic society. Take, for example, communism or 1984. The richer class uses its wealth to trump the lower class.

Can you please explain how this is possible? (Also, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly).)
No, but my friends over at Mises (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf) can. You should also note that the only example of a Natural Monopoly given by your source was a direct result of the British government regulating the water industry.

Still, you make it sound like monopolies aren't possible without government interference. I don't think that's true: take, for example, Microsoft's monopolization of the operating system industry or Standard Oil's monopolization of the oil industry.

They don't have to be compassionate. They're offering a product/service for a price. You can pay that price and receive that good or service. Harming people would still be illegal, but refusing service does not constitute harm.

Sure, but the most basic of services that are essential to the survival and well-being of the people — such as roads, fire and police, water, ect. — should be provided by the government, so this "productive greed" doesn't end up hurting the less fortunate.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Of course the United States isn't capitalist and I doubt it has ever been.

Well, now that we're on the same page, never mind what I said.

Best is a relative term, and for me it isn't really about improving the economy (though, it likely would) so much as it is about maximizing individual liberty.

*I know it's not technically free

Still, I don't see how letting the private sector manage everything makes a person more free. In my opinion, it'll just lead to a society where corporations manipulate the people for profit. Take, for example, Enron's involvement in the California energy crisis. I can envision that happening on a larger scale — with water, roads, fire and police, education, ect. — if we were to relinquish government control of these things.

[Perseus]

No Government take-over of Healthcare, thank you. Our nation was founded on the idea of the voters choosing and the government being equal and not all powerful.

So, people who cannot pay their medical bill because they are poor should just die because the government can't step in and say, "hey, since you are a citizen of our country and pay taxes, you deserve to stay healthy and pay more taxes!"

[RandomNobody1]

The Public Option was important, but very few people understood how it would work.

It wasn't going to be paid for with Taxes. It was going to be paid for by insurance premiums paid by customers. It wasn't free. It wasn't a free ride.

The incentive was to offer a low cost option for people who don't have the money to buy the privatized insurance. AND to make sure that insurance companies couldn't hold a monopoly on insurance and gouge prices to extreme levels.

Why is this important? In North Carolina, Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds 98% of the insurance industry. A typical monopoly in business is usually +16%. But under current legislation and the Anti-Trust Acts the Health Insurance business is excluded from antitrust laws.

The law that was passed wasn't strong enough, but it was an important step. I am afraid we won't get there after today.

[Korashk]

I don't see how private education can be cheaper than free. You know as well as I do that there are thousands of families that rely on the government's free education system.
When I said cheaper in my above post I was referring to the fact that it is cheaper to run private schools than it is to run public ones. Though, it would also be cheaper for the average family to send their child to private school if the whole system was privatized. See the bold part below. You and I both know that public school isn't actually free. The reduction in taxes would make it much easier for families to send their children to school.

It results in a classic aristocratic society. Take, for example, communism or 1984. The richer class uses its wealth to trump the lower class.
No it wouldn't. In an aristocracy the rich are the ones who are in power given that they are the ones who are rich. In a capitalist society the economy and the government would be completely separate. In fact, my idea of the ideal government would be a constitutional republic like the one we have in America today. Politicians would still be elected to government, they just wouldn't be allowed to affect the economy. The only reason that the rich are able to guide policy today is because the government is involved in the economy.

Still, you make it sound like monopolies aren't possible without government interference. I don't think that's true: take, for example, Microsoft's monopolization of the operating system industry or Standard Oil's monopolization of the oil industry.
That's not what I'm trying to make it sound like, it's exactly what I'm saying. Microsoft really isn't a monopoly given that they have have, successful, competitors that are gaining an increasing percentage in the market and I'm pretty sure the Mises.org source I gave in the last post describes how Standard Oil's monopoly was the direct result of government intervention.

Sure, but the most basic of services that are essential to the survival and well-being of the people — such as roads, fire and police, water, ect. — should be provided by the government, so this "productive greed" doesn't end up hurting the less fortunate.
I'll provide some examples on how privatizing all of the industries you just mentioned would work in favor of the common citizen. Except police. The police need to be run by the state.

Roads - A private company would create roads (or in a transitional state purchase roads from the government). It would then need a way to make profit off of those roads. This would be achieved in a number of ways. The roads would have a per-use toll for those that use them infrequently coupled with what amounts to a subscription fee for their use. Basically like a fast-pass for roads that are already tolled. This would eliminate the part of your taxes that go for roads.

Fire - This would basically be run similar to insurance. You pay a premium every month and if your home catches fire the department will come and put your fire out.

Water - Well, a lot of people pay utilities for water anyways. It wouldn't be much different than that

This would all be cheaper than it is currently for the tax-paying citizen because the elimination of the government monopoly opens up room for competition in the industry. Competition reduces prices.

The bold part is the key component of the free market economy being beneficia.l

Still, I don't see how letting the private sector manage everything makes a person more free. In my opinion, it'll just lead to a society where corporations manipulate the people for profit. Take, for example, Enron's involvement in the California energy crisis. I can envision that happening on a larger scale — with water, roads, fire and police, education, ect. — if we were to relinquish government control of these things.
I think I addressed this part in my above statement.

[Amnesiac]

When I said cheaper in my above post I was referring to the fact that it is cheaper to run private schools than it is to run public ones. Though, it would also be cheaper for the average family to send their child to private school if the whole system was privatized. See the bold part below. You and I both know that public school isn't actually free. The reduction in taxes would make it much easier for families to send their children to school.

I don't think so. Elementary and secondary education may not be 100% free, but it's so damn close that private education would, in the end, be more expensive.

No it wouldn't. In an aristocracy the rich are the ones who are in power given that they are the ones who are rich. In a capitalist society the economy and the government would be completely separate. In fact, my idea of the ideal government would be a constitutional republic like the one we have in America today. Politicians would still be elected to government, they just wouldn't be allowed to affect the economy. The only reason that the rich are able to guide policy today is because the government is involved in the economy.

I have a lingering fear that corporations will use their influence to trump government. It just seems all too possible. Also, what about protecting the environment? You have to admit that there will always be regulation of the economy if government exists, even if that regulation is minute.

That's not what I'm trying to make it sound like, it's exactly what I'm saying. Microsoft really isn't a monopoly given that they have have, successful, competitors that are gaining an increasing percentage in the market and I'm pretty sure the Mises.org source I gave in the last post describes how Standard Oil's monopoly was the direct result of government intervention.

Microsoft was considered a monopoly back in the 90s due to its complete domination of the software market. The result? The government forced Microsoft to end its predatory behavior against competitors, a reason why other companies such as Apple are starting to make gains in the market.

I'll provide some examples on how privatizing all of the industries you just mentioned would work in favor of the common citizen. Except police. The police need to be run by the state.

Roads - A private company would create roads (or in a transitional state purchase roads from the government). It would then need a way to make profit off of those roads. This would be achieved in a number of ways. The roads would have a per-use toll for those that use them infrequently coupled with what amounts to a subscription fee for their use. Basically like a fast-pass for roads that are already tolled. This would eliminate the part of your taxes that go for roads.

I don't see the purpose of having multiple roads operated by different companies all going to one destination. It would be a waste of land and resources and costly to travelers. Such a system is much too much of a hassle, having the government build and maintain roads for the public's free use is much more reasonable.

Fire - This would basically be run similar to insurance. You pay a premium every month and if your home catches fire the department will come and put your fire out.

What about those who can't afford fire insurance? Are we just going to let their homes or businesses burn down?

Water - Well, a lot of people pay utilities for water anyways. It wouldn't be much different than that

However, water systems are operated by the government. Having multiple companies operate a system made for operation by only one entity (city governments) would create a situation similar to what I said about roads.

This would all be cheaper than it is currently for the tax-paying citizen because the elimination of the government monopoly opens up room for competition in the industry. Competition reduces prices.

The bold part is the key component of the free market economy being beneficia.l

I think I addressed this part in my above statement.

It's a widely accepted view that many things are best left for the state to handle, not the private sector. Corporations don't exist to provide for the welfare of the people, they exist to make a profit. That alone makes them unfit to operate such basic infrastructure as water and roads. When it comes to things that are essential to the safety and well-being of the people, things that have historically and universally been operated by the state, they shouldn't be whored out by corporations. They should be run by the government, an entity which exists not to make a profit but to provide basic services and lay down the law of the land for the United States.

[Korashk]

I don't think so. Elementary and secondary education may not be 100% free, but it's so damn close that private education would, in the end, be more expensive.
You're probably right in the regard that if education was the only thing privatized then it would be more expensive for the individual. However, if the system in it's entirety were implemented as I've outlined a person would have more money in their pockets at the end of the fiscal year.

I have a lingering fear that corporations will use their influence to trump government. It just seems all too possible.
Why would they do that? The only reason that corporations are involved with the government today is because the government is involved in the economy. You remove the government from the economy and you remove all incentive that a corporation has to be involved in the government.

Also, what about protecting the environment?
Private property rights would be absolute. There would be no government involvement in protecting the environment.

Microsoft was considered a monopoly back in the 90s due to its complete domination of the software market. The result? The government forced Microsoft to end its predatory behavior against competitors, a reason why other companies such as Apple are starting to make gains in the market.
Not really. (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212) There is a ringing of truth to your statement, but the biggest aspect of the anti-trust allegations brought towards Microsoft had to due with Internet Explorer. Microsoft appealed the decision and won the case dealing with predatory business practices.

I don't see the purpose of having multiple roads operated by different companies all going to one destination.
Introduces competition which drives prices down.

It would be a waste of land and resources and costly to travelers.
Not as costly as taxes.

Such a system is much too much of a hassle, having the government build and maintain roads for the public's free use is much more reasonable.
And much more expensive.

What about those who can't afford fire insurance? Are we just going to let their homes or businesses burn down?
Yes. Though, it would be in the best interests of the companies offering fire protection to have you as their customer or offer their services on demand for a reactively marked up price.

However, water systems are operated by the government. Having multiple companies operate a system made for operation by only one entity (city governments) would create a situation similar to what I said about roads.
And would be better for the consumer due to a decrease in price.

It's a widely accepted view that many things are best left for the state to handle, not the private sector.
See here. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArgumentum_ad_populum&ei=M7LQTLrQDsWAlAe3_sWTBg&usg=AFQjCNGYGpPx9_toLBoKLLW7LFM_k8g1ug&sig2=xld54h2A3HX90CdUlzZ7WQ)

Corporations don't exist to provide for the welfare of the people, they exist to make a profit. That alone makes them unfit to operate such basic infrastructure as water and roads.
It actually makes them perfect for the job. I'll repeat my mantra: Competition lowers prices, lower prices is good for the individual.

When it comes to things that are essential to the safety and well-being of the people, things that have historically and universally been operated by the state,
Absolutely false, things such as fire protection and roads were provided privately in the early days of America.

They should be run by the government, an entity which exists not to make a profit but to provide basic services and lay down the law of the land for the United States.
Here's where we disagree. I believe that the role of government should be to simply protect its citizens from internal and external threats. Leaving everything else to the private sector which is better able to provide services to the people.

[Amnesiac]

You're probably right in the regard that if education was the only thing privatized then it would be more expensive for the individual. However, if the system in it's entirety were implemented as I've outlined a person would have more money in their pockets at the end of the fiscal year.

I'd like some statistics for that, it seems like charging for previously free services, even after removing some taxes, wouldn't save any money. Some things are still going to have to be taxed so that the government can operate.

Why would they do that? The only reason that corporations are involved with the government today is because the government is involved in the economy. You remove the government from the economy and you remove all incentive that a corporation has to be involved in the government.

Because people are naturally greedy. Even if government had NO involvement in the economy, which is probably not possible, corporations would still try and gain power over the consumers.

Private property rights would be absolute. There would be no government involvement in protecting the environment.

I don't support letting corporations get away with unsafe and unclean environmental practices. It's important — essential — that we protect the environment for future generations, and for the health and safety of ourselves.

URL="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212"]Not really.[/URL] There is a ringing of truth to your statement, but the biggest aspect of the anti-trust allegations brought towards Microsoft had to due with Internet Explorer. Microsoft appealed the decision and won the case dealing with predatory business practices.

Not exactly. The government settled with Microsoft, and restrictions were placed on Microsoft's business activities. In addition, they're still in trouble with the EU.

Introduces competition which drives prices down.

You didn't address the wastefulness of it. Sure, it could possibly be cheaper, but it's a pointless idea. Why have, let's say, 6 different corporations operating 6 different roads to the exact same destination, when you only need one?

Not as costly as taxes. And much more expensive.

So? It's still not wasteful.

Yes. Though, it would be in the best interests of the companies offering fire protection to have you as their customer or offer their services on demand for a reactively marked up price.

Well, that's just asking for a hellish world.

And would be better for the consumer due to a decrease in price.

As I said before, it's still a wasteful and pointless idea.

See here. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArgumentum_ad_populum&ei=M7LQTLrQDsWAlAe3_sWTBg&usg=AFQjCNGYGpPx9_toLBoKLLW7LFM_k8g1ug&sig2=xld54h2A3HX90CdUlzZ7WQ)

I wasn't using that argument in that context.

It actually makes them perfect for the job. I'll repeat my mantra: Competition lowers prices, lower prices is good for the individual.

You're focusing too much on prices. There's a fine line between cutting spending and endangering the public. Sure, maintaining these free services may be more expensive, but it isn't as wasteful and protects people who can't live without them. Economy and government aren't all about privatization and making things "cheaper", it would be foolish to think so. The amount of waste and overall disorganization plans such as yours would cause could be potentially catastrophic. School systems, police, fire and water are supposed to be controlled by one entity universally for maximum efficiency, not by multiple entities.

Absolutely false, things such as fire protection and roads were provided privately in the early days of America.

I meant in modern history (20th century to present).

Here's where we disagree. I believe that the role of government should be to simply protect its citizens from internal and external threats. Leaving everything else to the private sector which is better able to provide services to the people.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing: it isn't. All it creates is disorganization and waste. It's also not nearly as kind to our lower-income classes.

[Perseus]

I don't want to be that guy, but you guys might want to move this conversation to another thread before a mod comes bitching in here.

[Amnesiac]

I don't want to be that guy, but you guys might want to move this conversation to another thread before a mod comes bitching in here.

Eh, I can't take much more of this analyzing every line. I'm out, guise.

Case in point: Obamacare is a failure.

[Korashk]

Eh, I can't take much more of this analyzing every line. I'm out, guise.

Case in point: Obamacare is a failure.

Wish I'd seen this before I started a new thread. If you feel like continuing the discussion the thread's here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1062740#post1062740).

[RandomNobody1]

This thread got WAY out of hand. You're not supposed to let an argument descend into the chaos where you're analyzing every line and every word someone says for a quick retort or point of detail. That's like arguing grammar. It's a fallacy and it just took this argument to a point of no return. I'm not even going to bother.

[Amnesiac]

Wish I'd seen this before I started a new thread. If you feel like continuing the discussion the thread's here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1062740#post1062740).

Sorry dude, I can never keep up with this kind of debating. I'm interested in what others have to say, though.

This thread got WAY out of hand. You're not supposed to let an argument descend into the chaos where you're analyzing every line and every word someone says for a quick retort or point of detail. That's like arguing grammar. It's a fallacy and it just took this argument to a point of no return. I'm not even going to bother.

Well, good for you :D

You'll find this happens every now and then here on ROTW. I don't even know how.

[Korashk]

This thread got WAY out of hand.
I can agree.

You're not supposed to let an argument descend into the chaos where you're analyzing every line and every word someone says for a quick retort or point of detail.
I disagree, but that's not really what we were doing. We addressed each other's points.

That's like arguing grammar. It's a fallacy and it just took this argument to a point of no return. I'm not even going to bother.
Addressing and refuting your opponent's points isn't a fallacy...

[Sith Lord 13]

Most hospitals wont do anything if they know you dont have health insurance

I know, which is terrible.

OK, loud and clear BULLSHIT! here. It is illegal to refuse life saving emergency treatment.

[Perseus]

OK, loud and clear BULLSHIT! here. It is illegal to refuse life saving emergency treatment.

But it's still expensive for the person, which is just as bad.

[dead]

OK, loud and clear BULLSHIT! here. It is illegal to refuse life saving emergency treatment.

We found that only 10 states (those in green on the chart) have laws that essentially protect the choice of a patient whose advance directive says that life-preserving measures should be provided, should the health care provider disagree.
Right... As long as there stable they have no need to help them out. They dont need to treat them if they attempt to transfer the patient to another hospital that is willing to do treatment.
Once the patient is admitted and stabilized, the EMTALA obligations end, under the 2003 regulations and as clarified in the 2008 amendments. A new emergency medical condition which arises thereafter, or a decision to transfer the patient, does not invoke EMTALA. 42 CFR 489.24(d)(2). Note, however, that one case, arising from a 2002 incident, declined to follow this language, asserting that CMS's construction of the language was contrary to "clear legislative intent". Moses v. Providence Hospital, ___ F.3d ___ (6th Cir. 2009)