presidential election 2012: Romney v Obama

[fred smith]

Thanks for all the opinions on the debate. Now, back to Big John... Define the terms. Back to you . In your court. Respond please.

[BigJohn]

Thanks for all the opinions on the debate. Now, back to Big John... Define the terms. Back to you . In your court. Respond please.

You answer first: national health care coverage based on the private sector that works for the vast majority. You said you would answer before, (check pages 5 and 6 of this thread) now quit stalling.

[Mucha Man]

No, I am clearly the one who should be answered first. Just how long are you two philosophers going to waste fossil fuel generated electricity to continue this inanity?

[fred smith]

I have reviewed pages 5 and 6 and see no such commitment on my part to provide anything of the sort. You responded by dismissing my labeling of certain countries as socialist, saying they were social democracies and that is when I asked you to define the key terms FIRST before I respond. I know you and I know how you work. DEFINE the terms. What is private in your view? what is socialist? What is mixed? What is social democracy (whatever the hell that means in thsi context) and what is communist. Back to you.

[fred smith]

No, I am clearly the one who should be answered first. Just how long are you two philosophers going to waste fossil fuel generated electricity to continue this inanity?

Do I care about the use of fossil fuels? No. Therefore, I suggest that you drop out of this exchange. I know Big John and his games. This is why I will not answer until he defines the terms. We have seen this picture too many times before. I will provide an answer and he will redefine the terms. Have doubts read the whole laughable account of the Occupy Wall Street movement and our discussion regarding the motivations of the protesters. Suffice it to say, after Big John got his ass handed to him, we are no longer discussing the Occupy Wall Street movement. Bear with me OR I might open up another subject, oh say, one that is close to both of our hearts... We don't want to go there, do we?

[Mucha Man]

...bear with me OR I might open up another subject, oh say, one that is close to both of our hearts... We don't want to go there, do we?

What is this debate that dare not speak its name, fred? Never mind. I enjoy watching you dance around this topic with Big John. But I will henceforth refrain from cutting in.

[BigJohn]

So please Fred:can you give us any examples of a mainly private system which actually doesn't leave millions in the lurch as the US model does?

Are you sure that your public sector option is not leaving millions in the lurch as well? What are the waiting lists like? and what kind of rationing of health care exists?

Telling question though... the question of leaving millions in the lurch never explores whether we can afford to or not to leave them in the lurch. I understand that those proposing socialist policies actually believe that they are doing good. But in the long run... are they sustainable and what happens to the economic support that finances these? Socialism has failed everywhere in the world except... big exception perhaps Sweden. Why? Answer me that and I will answer your question about examples.

I deny that social democracies with largely public health care systems are leaving millions in the lurch. France? Canada? There are problems, but nowhere near as bad as the US.

As to your question: why has socialism largely failed? Because it is an inefficient economic system. It is based on government planning of the economy, but this is less efficient than the market for communicating information about goods and services needed where and when. It also has a negative effect on motivation to produce or work harder, than the more open ended rewards - and punishments - of capitalism.

But social democracy has not failed. Go to Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, yadda yadda.

Now: can you give us any examples of a non-public national health care system that - inevitable problems aside - takes pretty good care of the vast majority of its citizens?

Here it is!

[Gao Bohan]

I agree with BigJohn's definition. The difference between socialism and social democracy is that socialists want to assert complete control over the economy and provide all goods and services based on government needs assessments, while social democrats want to maintain the capitalist structure, allowing buyers and sellers to control the market, but these activities are tempered with regulations to protect consumers, worker safety, and the environment. Social democrats also collect taxes to provide basic services such as health care, police, fire, and emergency medical services, etc.

I consider myself a social democrat. I think that societies have proven through trial and error that total socialism and total capitalism don't work. Capitalism is by far the better choice, and without question the majority of the economy should be managed by private buyers and sellers. But at the same time, industry should be regulated to prevent worker abuse and environmental excesses, and the government should provide basic services to ensure a high standard of living for everybody.

Governments have proven they can manage health insurance better than the private sector. They're able to achieve economies of scale and offer health insurance at a lower cost. And in single payer systems, health care technology, pharmaceuticals, facilities, and medical workers can all remain private. Secondary private insurance is also generally available. As in virtually every other industry, a mix of public and private interests serve society best.

[BigJohn]

I hope no one minds if I go back to the topic!

What do y'all think about Romney's foreign policy style? Questioning the London Olympics, calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel, saying that Jewish culture is largely responsible for the wealth gap between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. I mean, regardless of whether one believes these questions or ideas to have merit, surely he is being less than diplomatic. Not a good sign for the possible leader of the world's most powerful country?

[fred smith]

I agree with BigJohn's definition. The difference between socialism and social democracy is that socialists want to assert complete control over the economy and provide all goods and services based on government needs assessments, while social democrats want to maintain the capitalist structure, allowing buyers and sellers to control the market, but these activities are tempered with regulations to protect consumers, worker safety, and the environment. Social democrats also collect taxes to provide basic services such as health care, police, fire, and emergency medical services, etc.

I consider myself a social democrat. I think that societies have proven through trial and error that total socialism and total capitalism don't work. Capitalism is by far the better choice, and without question the majority of the economy should be managed by private buyers and sellers. But at the same time, industry should be regulated to prevent worker abuse and environmental excesses, and the government should provide basic services to ensure a high standard of living for everybody.

Governments have proven they can manage health insurance better than the private sector. They're able to achieve economies of scale and offer health insurance at a lower cost. And in single payer systems, health care technology, pharmaceuticals, facilities, and medical workers can all remain private. Secondary private insurance is also generally available. As in virtually every other industry, a mix of public and private interests serve society best.

Well, my obvious answer is the US. But are you going to suggest that it is not a private system because we have Medicaid and Medicare? or are you going to suggest that it has failed because millions do not have insurance? when they can use emergency rooms for treatment which may bankrupt them if they do not have insurance but the care is still available. The reason why I want a definition from Big John first is that I don't want him to come back (and now it is too late) to say the US is not a private system. While his previous answer would seem to indicate that he agrees that it IS a private system and thus has FAILED, I would argue that it has not and I don't want any wiggle room for him to come back later and say his response has to be qualified because of x, y or z. PROVIDING income support whether for food stamps or medical insurance does NOT equate in my view to making the MEDICAL system mixed or social democrat or socialist or whatever qualifers you want to add. It may make the national policy one that is social democrat or socialist as these are provided but that does not necessarily change how the system FUNCTIONS.

Now, the separate issue is the key one and it is one of cost. While you can have a socialist or social democrat (whatever that means) medical care system, the question is not whether it is desirable or fair or feasible... the real question is whether it is affordable and sustainable in the long run. If it is NOT sustainable then it becomes merely yet another "good idea" of the left that is "the right thing to do" but one that is not realistically sustainable in the long term. THAT does make a difference and I don't think that anyone here has adequately addressed the cost to fair to need argument in a satisfactory way. In fact, I would argue that it has not really been answered either nationally or internationally.

While government management might make for more efficient pooling of patients and the like to drive down costs... the other solution would be to open the insurance market completely as it is for cars and other products and junk the state residency and other restrictions. This would make the system more privatized while the government intervention for preconditions and poverty would be a social instrument or social democrat (whatever that means in this context) that would not inherently change the free market system that would in my view result in a definition of the existing system as PRIVATE.