Could the United States afoord to NOT have medicare/medicaid?

[MrFun]

While that's likely true (and additionally the abrupt end of any government support would engender a huge amount of suffering on the part of those with revealed medical conditions) this is, as I'm sure you're aware, insufficient criticism of any reasonable move toward a more plutocratic system...

fixed

[Kuciwalker]

While that's likely true (and additionally the abrupt end of any government support would engender a huge amount of suffering on the part of those with revealed medical conditions) this is, as I'm sure you're aware, insufficient criticism of any reasonable move toward a more market-oriented system...

Of course. The operative word was "tomorrow". See also Arnold Kling/PSST/recalculation.

[KrazyHorse]

fixed

Stop being an idiot. Or do you think of the market provision of food as "plutocratic"?

[KrazyHorse]

Of course. The operative word was "tomorrow". See also Arnold Kling/PSST/recalculation.

I'm aware of what you were thinking about...

[Hauldren Collider]

Stop being an idiot. Or do you think of the market provision of food as "plutocratic"?

MrFun would have to stop posting entirely to stop being an idiot. When was the last time he posted a thread and you thought "boy, this looks intelligent!"

[giblets]

MrFun would have to stop posting entirely to stop being an idiot. When was the last time he posted a thread and you thought "boy, this looks intelligent!"

^^^lack of self-awareness^^^

[Kuciwalker]

glass houses etc.

[Bosh]

Public health care isn't perfect but when you look at charts like this: http://topforeignstocks.com/wp/wp-co...-per-cpita.PNG
It gets pretty hard to defend America's system. Plenty of countries with full public health care have governments that spend less on health care than America's government spends (let alone private health care). It'd surely be better to have a system like one of those and get more health coverage for less money.

The standard of care in Korea is somewhat lower than in America (mostly due to shorter doctor appointments) but when it costs less than a quarter as much per capita as has people visiting the doctor more often (so you get better preventative care since people don't wait until they're really sick before going to the doctor since it's so cheap so why not?) it makes claims that having a public health system means cost go up look pretty damn idiotic.

But then Ben is against public health care, so by the standards of Ben Is Always Wrong About Everything then it's a pretty open and shut case...

[MrFun]

Stop being an idiot. Or do you think of the market provision of food as "plutocratic"?

Your post that I "fixed" for you, was in response to Medicare, not food distribution.

[KrazyHorse]

How idiotic do you wish to make yourself appear? Grow some semblance of an ability to think rationally, or else stay an object of ridicule.

[notyoueither]

If by free market it is meant free of government influence, control, or intervention...

Food has been the subject of government intervention and management since before the nanny state. Even before the King was the state.

[Tupac Shakur]

Public health care isn't perfect but when you look at charts like this: http://topforeignstocks.com/wp/wp-co...-per-cpita.PNG

It gets pretty hard to defend America's system. Plenty of countries with full public health care have governments that spend less on health care than America's government spends (let alone private health care). It'd surely be better to have a system like one of those and get more health coverage for less money.

I think every serious person agrees that a system that rations healthcare would be superior to America's current cluster**** (Obamacare included). The disagreement is about whether individuals should rations their own healthcare (in response to price signals) or whether the government should make the rationing decisions instead (most likely through some bureaucratic body).

[Hauldren Collider]

Public health care isn't perfect but when you look at charts like this: http://topforeignstocks.com/wp/wp-co...-per-cpita.PNG
It gets pretty hard to defend America's system. Plenty of countries with full public health care have governments that spend less on health care than America's government spends (let alone private health care). It'd surely be better to have a system like one of those and get more health coverage for less money.

The standard of care in Korea is somewhat lower than in America (mostly due to shorter doctor appointments) but when it costs less than a quarter as much per capita as has people visiting the doctor more often (so you get better preventative care since people don't wait until they're really sick before going to the doctor since it's so cheap so why not?) it makes claims that having a public health system means cost go up look pretty damn idiotic.

But then Ben is against public health care, so by the standards of Ben Is Always Wrong About Everything then it's a pretty open and shut case...

They spend less on healthcare because it isn't as available. For instance: The congo spends substantially less on healthcare than we do. I'd much rather have ours.

It seems pretty clear that the european healthcare system is basically lower cost due to rationing, which implies that their "savings" are actually just arbitrarily reduced availability. This is not a defense of their system, it is a damnation.

[giblets]

They spend less on healthcare because it isn't as available. For instance: The congo spends substantially less on healthcare than we do. I'd much rather have ours.

It seems pretty clear that the european healthcare system is basically lower cost due to rationing, which implies that their "savings" are actually just arbitrarily reduced availability. This is not a defense of their system, it is a damnation.

How do you know this? You haven't offered any facts to support your claims and you haven't claimed to have any experience with health care systems outside of your country.

[Lorizael]

It seems pretty clear that the european healthcare system is basically lower cost due to rationing, which implies that their "savings" are actually just arbitrarily reduced availability. This is not a defense of their system, it is a damnation.

As opposed to our system, where our rationing is done according to the socioeconomic status of the recipient, which is also largely arbitrary.