0
0

(Healthcare Reform) Healthcare bubble and how long before a painful crash?


 invite response                
2011 Jan 19, 11:55am   7,465 views  35 comments

by FortWayne   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

Wondering if others think the same way. The way healthcare reform personally affected me is it put a $6,000 additional of my money per year from whatever I would spend it on into the healthcare industry. And with trend increases of 12% per year, this can't possibly be sustainable. Although there was perhaps a noble precontext for passing the reform, so far it only has increased costs and basically solidified the fact that I must participate. I really do not see anything good come out of it, maybe like the housing bubble but a lot more painful because this now deals with healthcare and not wooden boxes that could be abandoned.

$6,000 comes from increases in healthcare premiums which resulted due to reform so far for me.

Anyone else shares an opinion on this topic?

#housing

Comments 1 - 35 of 35        Search these comments

1   Â¥   2011 Jan 19, 4:49pm  

Anyone else shares an opinion on this topic?

The previous system was insane. The current one is transitory. I don't know what the 2014 version will be like, or if it can in fact be protected from continued Republican attacks. We can only wait, but on paper it doesn't look to be any worse than the status quo for the vast majority of people, people were getting screwed en-masse by the previous system in a variety of ways -- BS rescissions, ineligibility due to preexisting conditions.

$500/month is $16/day. Surely the life of you and your loved ones are worth another $16/day.

In 2014, if your premiums are more than ~11% of your wages then you will get the cost subsidized down to 11% basically.

The previous system controlled prices by operating a two- or three-tier system. The lucky ones who were healthy or not sick enough to work (and lucky enough to have good coverage at work), then people who had spotty coverage, and people who were entirely screwed.

The new system pushes everything much closer to universal coverage, with the downside of higher costs for everyone, especially higher-income households who will have to pay the subsidies for everyone else in the end.

But this is a good thing; the only way to change the shitty parts of the system is to make the powerful people have to pay for it. That will start putting more political pressure on the health service providers to pull in profit margins.

But, then again, in any free market health care will be the most expensive thing going, since health is the cornerstone of anyone's wealth.

2   Done!   2011 Jan 20, 12:48am  

It's total Crap, but I trust our for Lobby for profit, Political system can make it better...
Blah blah blah,it must sustain attacks from the republicans, blah blah blah...
What's $500 a month?(when people are struggling to make their bills, save for the future, and put food on the table. and it's a $1400 a month for a family of 4 BTfuckinW)

And for the OP, it's not a bubble when you Have To!

3   Done!   2011 Jan 20, 5:15am  

tatupu70 says

And how are you pinning the cause on the healthcare bill?

Well maybe because Obama Promised the rates "wouldn't go up".

Got a good bridge to go with that Troll?

4   Done!   2011 Jan 20, 5:47am  

"Those of you that like your existing plans, nothing will change. The rates wont go up, and for those can't afford Health plans, there will be affordable options."

Of course I'm paraphrasing, but you'll be that felling chagrin, if I actually Google the exact way he phrased it.

5   Â¥   2011 Jan 20, 6:18am  

ChrisLosAngeles says

The individual mandate forces me to buy it.

Not until 2014, you know.

And in 2014 health plans will be subsidized to basically not exceed 11% of household income.

So feel free to cancel your family's insurance now and teach the insurance companies a lesson about price discovery.

6   MattBayArea   2011 Jan 20, 6:22am  

I'm shocked that insurance companies, resentful of any government regulation, would increase their rates right after 'obama-care'. BTW, is this 'Obama-care' thing what Obama and his people wanted - or is it some sort of bastardized compromise that has a few seemingly good things (removing lifetime limits, I hear, and mandating that people get health care ... which sounds terrible but with subsidies and the fact that people already had mandated care ... through emergency room care ... that they didn't have to pay for at all) but very little real reform (such as limitations on health insurance profits)?

7   Â¥   2011 Jan 20, 6:33am  

Matt C. says

hat they didn’t have to pay for at all) but very little real reform (such as limitations on health insurance profits)?

health insurance profits are in fact limited. 15-20% of all insurer income has to go to **care**, starting this month actually.

Now, HMOs can apparently game this all to hell, but we can fix that.

Or could, if we had a functional political system, which we don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Provisions

8   EBGuy   2011 Jan 20, 8:05am  

Kaiser raised my rates 20% again this year. They also raised my rates about 20% in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and every year as far back as I can remember.
Well, they have been losing healthy bodies as of late (though, that is the same excuse used by the other insurers). I'm still placing a lot of stock in the HMO's; the fact that Sutter Health is trying to mirror two legs of the Kaiser stool says to me they are on to something. I still can't get over the customer service (whodathunk) that I experience at my doctors office, since joining the Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation. It may be just a sheen, but it sure beats surly staff.
Hell, I'll go on record and say that Kaiser will NOT meet the 85% threshold of care (for large groups) and they will rebate the difference to their customers. Believe me, that'll be more effective than any of their advertising campaigns. You heard it here first.

9   elliemae   2011 Jan 20, 1:54pm  

Matt C. says

the fact that people already had mandated care … through emergency room care … that they didn’t have to pay for at all)

Having worked in the healthcare field with those very ER patients of which you speak, I can tell you that waiting 10 hours in the ER to be seen for "free" care is no picnic. Especially when, if the patient requires treatment that's not emergent (a threat to life or limb, basically) they are discharged and told to follow up with their primary doc. Not the ER's fault if they don't have a primary or the $ to pay for it. And no, Medicaid isn't available to everyone. Calif is more liberal on its healthcare, partially the reason it's in a horrible financial crisis right now. But if a patient goes to the ER for an upper respiratory infection, they're given a script for meds that they can't afford. Most ER's aren't mandated to provide prescription medications and they don't have samples. Follow up xrays, etc aren't available either.

I've said it before here - I've seen people actually die because they couldn't access healthcare. To those who think it's been wonderful for the uninsured, it hasn't and continues not to be.

I used to hoof it to the pharmacy across the street to get patients who were being discharged from the hospital 3 days worth of medications. 3 days! Then, the hosp administration wondered why the same people ended up back in the ER worse off a week later. Our healthcare system was broken, and a very powerful lobby of providers screwed up our first chance to fix it. Hopefully the new healthcare laws will actually help out someday.

Healthcare should never, ever be an option.

10   Done!   2011 Jan 20, 11:57pm  

You guys are like the Democrat Bastards in Washington that never listened once, while the other 50% of the country said no way no how to a Mandated Obamacare.

If insurance has been rising 20% a year, we'd be a million dollars a year by now, just since Clinton.
You guys keep blindly covering your Democrat shyster crooked politicians you elected.
The other 50% will never pay into the Obama care, and an added "Unforeseen" consequence you'll have to live with. Will be the hundreds of Billions if not Trillions of dollars of incomes that will be taken off the books and paid under the table.
That's a huge Taxbase you're gambling with. You want Obamacare, you'll be lucky if there's a budget for the infrastructure, when people go "Cash only" on your dumb asses.

Yeah we're that passionate about it! The other 50% that doesn't want it.

11   EBGuy   2011 Jan 21, 3:42am  

If we really wanted to lower rates, we’d model the system after Canada...
I'm not convinced that's what we need. You get the quick one times savings (overhead), and then it's all The Barbarian Invasions after that.

12   simchaland   2011 Jan 21, 7:21am  

elliemae says

...But if a patient goes to the ER for an upper respiratory infection, they’re given a script for meds that they can’t afford. Most ER’s aren’t mandated to provide prescription medications and they don’t have samples. Follow up xrays, etc aren’t available either.
I’ve said it before here - I’ve seen people actually die because they couldn’t access healthcare. To those who think it’s been wonderful for the uninsured, it hasn’t and continues not to be.
...Healthcare should never, ever be an option.

Elliemae, thanks for pointing this out. Everyone keeps talking about the "care" that is mandated at ERs for people without insurance as if it's a panacea and effective care. ER care is the most expensive care. It's meant for acute crises and not everyday illness. When uninsured people are forced to go to the ER for treatment of regular everyday illnesses that should be handled at an urgent care clinic or by a primary care physician, it over loads the ER. The care in the ER plummets for everyone including those who come with actual acute emergencies because the ER is burdened with lots of people who have the flu, a bad cold, bronchitis, etc. who can't get care anywhere else because they don't have insurance.

And the ERs consistently provide inadequate care for those uninsured people who go to the emergency room for every day illnesses best handled by a primary care physician or an urgent care clinic.

I sent a client to the emergency room this week from a group session because this client was dizzy, had chest pain, and was coughing terribly. I serve 18-25 year old homeless youth. This client doesn't qualify for MediCal (California's version of Medicaid) because the client isn't disabled but this client is without income and homeless. In California, even though the system is allegedly more "liberal" very few of the people I serve qualify for MediCal because they are able-bodied. Simply being "indigent" (I hate that word!) doesn't make one qualify for MediCal even if you qualify for General Assistance (which is a meagre loan that has to be paid back through wage garnishments upon becoming employed) and food assistance (food stamps).

Anyway, this client had no other choice in care. This client waited too long to get care thus complicating this client's illness because this client couldn't afford the low cost clinic.

This client is recovering from addiction and has been sober for a good while. What did the ER do? They didn't give the client a chest x-ray because they told this client that this would be too expensive and since the client had no insurance they just handed this client a prescription for Vicodin and sent this client home! This is all too common here in the Bay Area. Often my clients are forced to go to the ER for illnesses that have become acute because they couldn't afford to get treatment when they initially became sick and the ERs simply prescribe them some opiate or opioid and send them on their way.

And to add insult to injury this client couldn't even afford to fill the prescription even if this client were to desire to fill it. The client didn't want to fill it because opiates and opioids should be avoided by addicts in recovery.

I sent this client to a community clinic the next day and I still don't know that this client received adequate care.

This is a young person who is able bodied who could work if there was a job available for this client to do. When sick, this young person cannot continue the employment search, obviously, and is in danger of dying from illnesses that are easily curable, if only this young person could afford the treatment.

This is the situation for young homeless adults in the USA right now. It is a 3rd. world country as far as they are concerned. They have no access to real healthcare and there aren't any jobs for them to take because all the jobs they would do normally are taken by state workers who have been furloughed for years. So they are competing with people who have bachelor's and master's degrees for jobs at McDonald's, Burger King, Foot Locker, Starbucks, etc. They lose almost every time. Even if they were to get one of these jobs, they won't get health coverage.

Also while employed at these minimum wage jobs, if they get sick, they are in danger of losing their job if they call in sick. So, if they have a job, even in the fast food industry, they will push through their illness and go to work so that they won't lose their jobs.

What does this do? This creates a situation where there is an underclass of workers without healthcare coverage or "sick days" making minimum wage or just above it that must come to work even when sick in order to just keep a job. At food service locations this is a natural set up for spreading illness. So, customers and patrons get sick because workers need to work even while sick.

This drives up the costs of healthcare because these newly infected people (even with insurance) must go to seek care. It also increases human suffering and communicates to those who are the underclass of workers that they are less than human.

Something must change if this misery is to end. Something must change if we want to control costs and improve the health of our citizenry.

13   elliemae   2011 Jan 21, 2:59pm  

Nomograph says

I’m convinced that 99% of what comes out of you is complete BS.

But at least it's legible BS:

Tenouncetrout says

You guys are like the Democrat Bastards in Washington that never listened once, while the other 50% of the country said no way no how to a Mandated Obamacare.
If insurance has been rising 20% a year, we’d be a million dollars a year by now, just since Clinton.
You guys keep blindly covering your Democrat shyster crooked politicians you elected.
The other 50% will never pay into the Obama care, and an added “Unforeseen” consequence you’ll have to live with. Will be the hundreds of Billions if not Trillions of dollars of incomes that will be taken off the books and paid under the table.
That’s a huge Taxbase you’re gambling with. You want Obamacare, you’ll be lucky if there’s a budget for the infrastructure, when people go “Cash only” on your dumb asses.

I understand him less & less as time goes on.

14   Â¥   2011 Jan 21, 4:52pm  

elliemae says

I understand him less & less as time goes on.

That was a really bizarre rant. He doesn't apparently know that "ObamaCare" is the same damn thing that Mitt Romney got passed in Mass, right, and that the Heritage Foundation's own pointman on health care reform proposed the exact same damn thing not that long ago.

Plus of course the 1993 Republican plan had the same mandate.

What TOT doesn't understand is with the mandate comes subsidies. Starting in 2014 the household outgo for health insurance will be capped at ~10% of gross income. Households making over $90,000 don't get this subsidy, and since they pay the bulk of income taxes they're going to be on the hook for everybody else's subsidies.

This is the true sand in their vag. All the "Obamacare down my throat" crap is just smoke to rile up the rubes like TOT.

I really need to GTFO this chickenshit place.

15   bob2356   2011 Jan 21, 9:48pm  

EBGuy says

If we really wanted to lower rates, we’d model the system after Canada…

I’m not convinced that’s what we need. You get the quick one times savings (overhead), and then it’s all The Barbarian Invasions after that.

It's a movie for christ sakes not a peer reviewed case study. Actually the link is a movie review. I would hope that this comment is satire and I just missed it.

16   MattBayArea   2011 Jan 23, 5:18am  

Regarding the 15-20% of income being spent on actual care ...

There are no loopholes in this? I don't know myself, perhaps it is naive to assume that there are...

That said, isn't it ironic that a mere 15-20% of the money we pay actually goes toward our health care? What is the % of money spent in the Canadian system, or other systems, that goes toward care?

Also, I don't want to point fingers, but someone failed to note the sarcasm in my post. No matter though.

17   kentm   2011 Jan 23, 5:52am  

Well, I've read that medicare admin costs are around 5%, compared to the private system which apparently spends around 25%...

Re canada, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

"Of the three biggest health care expenses, the amount spent on pharmaceuticals has increased the most. In 1997 the total price of drugs surpassed that of doctors. In 1975 the three biggest health costs were hospitals ($5.5B/44.7%), physicians ($1.8B/15.1% ), and medications ($1.1B/8.8% ) while in 2007 the three biggest costs were hospitals ($45.4B/28.2% ), medications ($26.5B/16.5% ), and physicians ($21.5B/13.4% ).[20]"

"Total spending in 2007 was equivalent to 10.1% of the gross domestic product which was slightly above the average for OECD countries, and below the 16.0% of GDP spent on health care in the United States.[18] "

and

"Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[5][6]"

this is interesting:

"Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facilty for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access. A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer."

There's more in there.... and here's an excellent article:

http://www.scienceandreason.ca/newsletter/lies-about-canadian-health-care/

"Yes there are wait times in Canada, but nobody waits for emergency surgery.

Despite its imperfections, inadequacies, and increasingly classist structure (due to its deterioration over the years and movement towards a two-tiered system), Canadian Medicare is still a universal health care system that ensures no Canadian will ever go bankrupt, lose their house, go into debt, become homeless, or die because they have an accident or get sick."

18   marcus   2011 Jan 23, 6:34am  

kentm says

“Some residents of Canada travel to the United States because it provides the nearest facilty for their needs. Some do so on quality grounds or because of easier access. A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer.”

I am very much in favor of a medicare for all Canadian type of system, but I also believe that this doesn't cover all of the reasons Canadians sometimes come here for medical care.

Clearly there are rich Canadians who sometimes find themselves with certain health conditions that can be treated better in the states. It is logical that under a national system where everyone gets care there is a different type of "rationing" that would occur than the rationing we have now.

And I can live with that (maybe not one day, but you get my point).

The rationing we have is where insurance companies work hard to figure what they can avoid paying for.

Under a "medicare for all" system, some extreme (and expensive) life extending procedures would have to be given up in favor of more resources spent on the care that is going to everyone. This makes sense. Maybe for example if someone was 84 and it was determined that quadruple bypass surgery has a 25% chance of extending their life for a few years, this would have to be forgone, because that type of expenditure just can't be made on everyone.

You know of course that in the US, even if we did get to where this type of thing was not done, the rich would always be able to go somewhere to get it. India perhaps ?

19   marcus   2011 Jan 23, 8:00am  

You know your stats include everyone right ?

The thing is that most of the right wingers that are against reform do not believe that health care is a right. If you have the misfortune to be born in to a poor family in the U.S. that can't afford good health care (and you lower the longevity stats because of your diet and your lack of health care) you're out of luck. They would say all that matters are the stats of those who have good health care coverage. For them, it's only the cost that is too high.

I agree about the dishonesty. They would deny that they are not considering how everyone fares.

20   elliemae   2011 Jan 23, 1:01pm  

I think it's crazy that thehealthcare discussion doesn't include dental & eyeglasses.

I once volunteered at a community healthfair; we had a couple of hundred pair of eyeglasses and people were going through them finding some that worked okay. Men putting on what were obviously women's glasses, etc. Didn't matter. These people drove up there, too - which means that these people are driving down the road with an inability to see.

Dental care is just as important, for many reasons. A dental infection can cause a systemic blood infection that can kill a person. That doesn't take into account the pain & agony that accompanies dental problems.

Healthcare is healthcare. Just sayin'

21   zzyzzx   2011 Jan 23, 11:27pm  

elliemae says

I think it’s crazy that thehealthcare discussion doesn’t include dental & eyeglasses.
I once volunteered at a community healthfair; we had a couple of hundred pair of eyeglasses and people were going through them finding some that worked okay. Men putting on what were obviously women’s glasses, etc. Didn’t matter. These people drove up there, too - which means that these people are driving down the road with an inability to see.
Dental care is just as important, for many reasons. A dental infection can cause a systemic blood infection that can kill a person. That doesn’t take into account the pain & agony that accompanies dental problems.
Healthcare is healthcare. Just sayin’

I agree, but I think that was tried someplace in Europe and they discontinued the program since they were swamped with people getting their teeth fixed and it was deemed too expensive.

22   zzyzzx   2011 Jan 23, 11:30pm  

marcus says

You know your stats include everyone right ?
The thing is that most of the right wingers that are against reform do not believe that health care is a right.

Absolutely it's not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

23   zzyzzx   2011 Jan 23, 11:35pm  

Shouldn't this thread be in the Heath Insurance forum?

24   tatupu70   2011 Jan 23, 11:37pm  

zzyzzx says

marcus says


You know your stats include everyone right ?
The thing is that most of the right wingers that are against reform do not believe that health care is a right.

Absolutely it’s not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

So, in your mind owning a gun is a protected right, but living isn't?

25   Â¥   2011 Jan 24, 10:31am  

tatupu70 says

So, in your mind owning a gun is a protected right, but living isn’t?

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

No mention of health in there tho.

As a left-libertarian I occasionally see the merits of the minarchist/anarcho-capitalist argument of letting the chips fall. Coupled with an aggressive land value tax regime and general leasing of the public weal -- from natural resources to EM spectrum to taxi medallions -- I'd like to think we wouldn't need all this government spending.

We're going to be spending close to $7T this year. That is $240/workday for every employed private-sector person.

The mind boggles.

26   marcus   2011 Jan 24, 11:22am  

zzyzzx says

marcus says

You know your stats include everyone right ?
The thing is that most of the right wingers that are against reform do not believe that health care is a right.

Absolutely it’s not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

When I refer to "it's a right," that doesn't mean I think it should be free. Not any more than it is now. It just means that there should be a decent quality health care that we all have access to, and we should pay for it through taxes, as we already do for medicare. Why is that people can't see that medicare already pays a massive share of the expensive end of life care as it is.

With single payer (the government), imagine the potential for reforming the whole structure and cost by negotiating with providers, and forcing certain uniform methods of charging, billing, and delivering care. But then the right wingers say "aohh, but I'm s-s-s-s-scarred," and big pharma and the big insurance companies say "YOU SHOULD BE."

27   marcus   2011 Jan 24, 11:25am  

Sadly, we could easily of had a majority of the public behind single payer, but they put on a big dog and pony show with the Tea Party, and the screamers at town hall meetings to make us think that it was democracy at work. The more I reflect on it, it is the corporatocracy at work. Corporate welfare, corporate socialism,...call it what you will, we got played.

28   Â¥   2011 Jan 24, 11:34am  

marcus says

The more I reflect on it, it is the corporatocracy at work. Corporate welfare, corporate socialism,…call it what you will, we got played.

ayup. There's a bigger "take" in providing bad government instead of good government.

People can't see alternative futures so don't know what they're missing. There was a general hue & cry whipped for "reform" in the previous decade -- Michael Moore's "Sicko" had something to do with that -- but the shape of the reform was going to be another political battle.

This is large part of the reason conservatives slag on the Europeans as much as they do -- looking at how other countries do things is the only way we can really see the man behind the curtain, or sense that the current status quo is far, far from an optimal state.

29   MarkInSF   2011 Jan 24, 1:08pm  

zzyzzx says

Absolutely it’s not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

Darwinism is descriptive, no prescriptive. If societies that adopt liberal policies survive and thrive, then Darwinism describes them as fittest.

I can't point to a single example of a country with a weak goverment, and lazze fare economics that is thriving. Can you?

I can point to several that are hell holes though.

And let me guess, you think police and courts are reverse Darwinism too?

30   MarkInSF   2011 Jan 24, 1:13pm  

This decade the health "bubble" will crash. 12%/yr increases can't go on for much longer. HOW it will crash I won't speculate, but I will speculate it will be THE defining political issue if the mid-to-late-2010's.

31   tatupu70   2011 Jan 24, 9:20pm  

Troy says

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
No mention of health in there tho.

It's does mention "life" though....

32   marcus   2011 Jan 24, 10:08pm  

MarkInSF says

but I will speculate it will be THE defining political issue if the mid-to-late-2010’s.

When it comes to issues like "single payer" or not, or the issue of how big our military should be, we have to hope and wait for all the "corporate citizens" to figure out what's best for the country. Not that that isn't dangerous. Maybe they don't care. They can all move their corporate offices to Switzerland.

33   zzyzzx   2011 Jan 25, 12:02am  

MarkInSF says

zzyzzx says


Absolutely it’s not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

Darwinism is descriptive, no prescriptive. If societies that adopt liberal policies survive and thrive, then Darwinism describes them as fittest.
I can’t point to a single example of a country with a weak goverment, and lazze fare economics that is thriving. Can you?
I can point to several that are hell holes though.
And let me guess, you think police and courts are reverse Darwinism too?

I can't point to a single country that's a welfare state that's thriving.

34   Done!   2011 Jan 25, 12:14am  

Troy says

That was a really bizarre rant. He doesn’t apparently know that “ObamaCare” is the same damn thing that Mitt Romney got passed in Mass, right, and that the Heritage Foundation’s own pointman on health care reform proposed the exact same damn thing not that long ago.

And I don't give Damn! When did I ever endorsed or support or even vaguely claim that Mitt Rommey is a politician I even care about? I don't want the damn thing(OBC by the OPP) regardless. Are you stuck on the Ass and Elephant? Have you ever read a post of mine? You guys first rebuttal with out fail, like fight or flight instinct is to tell me "What the Republicans did first.". I'm not impressed by Republicans, get that through your head.

And if your GUYS keep doing Dumb shit that Republicans done did. Then you're just making my POINT(if you ever actually took the time to really read the damn thing!), that Republicans and Democrats are the same freaking thing. The Democrats are just there for sloppy seconds.

...and Sooner or later you'll need Nader.

35   MarkInSF   2011 Jan 25, 1:33am  

zzyzzx says

MarkInSF says

zzyzzx says

Absolutely it’s not a right. Duh. That and a lot of us are tired of paying high taxes to essentially support the reverse Darwinism programs proagated by liberals.

Darwinism is descriptive, no prescriptive. If societies that adopt liberal policies survive and thrive, then Darwinism describes them as fittest.

I can’t point to a single example of a country with a weak goverment, and lazze fare economics that is thriving. Can you?

I can point to several that are hell holes though.

And let me guess, you think police and courts are reverse Darwinism too?

I can’t point to a single country that’s a welfare state that’s thriving.

What planet do you live on?

The biggest economies in the world are US, Japan, UK, Germany, France.... They *ALL* have strong welfare states. All except the US have universal health coverage - and even we do for seniors, free or heavily subsidized education, assistance for unemployed....

China doesn't, but 1/2 their population still lives in grinding poverty, so I'm not sure they qualify yet as "thriving".

If you want your darwinist dream land, where the state doesn't look out for it's citizens very much, you need look no further than Mexico, or if you want even better examples, look to Africa.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions