European Who Loves America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ddinante wrote:
A few corrections:
The US did not enter WWII to save Europe. That claim is obtuse. [/quote]

Good thing no one made that claim.

There are many poor people in the US. You will notice I did not put a figure, because the 45 million below poverty line number is not one I can back up reliably, but even taking half or a third of that number as poor, by US and European standards - it’s still an astounding number. A society with that much wealth and that many poor is just wrong, unless you subscribe to a strictly evolutionary worldview in which poor people are poor because they are incapable of “improving” their lot. Also, as for your 1%, we aren’t talking about the rest of the world here. We’re talking about the US and Europe.

Lefty talking point, you say. I don’t consider myself a lefty. I’d rather you didn’t name me one. This one-dimensional thinking is another problem with the American political system. There’s left, there’s right, and there’s centre, and two of those views are practically commies in disguise. So limited.

Do you actually think that lobbying and campaign donations are NOT a blight on political activity, in the US and elsewhere? Do you not see the laws and exceptions which are enacted every month, directly putting money in the pockets of corporate shareholders? What about when copyright and patent laws and the bailouts and the immigration laws were made for the corporations? Have you not read of the shenanigans being pulled by old car companies to stifle Tesla Motors? This could go on all day…

Healthcare costs more in the US, for less quality. This is no secret “lefty” agenda. The fact that a lot of these costs are not open to the average person who just pays the insurance premiums does nothing to change the fact that it is costly to the economy. I really don’t care to debate this well-researched fact. I’m certain you could find studies to show it.

As for the military “aid” to Europe and Canada, I daresay EVERYONE was suggesting it, so you are being a tad disingenuous when you claim nothing of the sort was said.

Lastly, I have kept my tone straight and civil. I would rather the conversation stayed well out of the mud-slinging pit. It’s quite all right to express disagreement without resorting to colourful language of this sort: “horse shit as you pile on, ignorant of actual definitions of words.”

62

[quote]ddinante wrote:
A society with that much wealth and that many poor is just wrong, [/quote]

Please name a time and society in human history where there was not “poor and rich” people. Please show the gap in America is wider than those examples you are never going to find.

Please espouse on how, 160 years ago the poor in America were starving and wearing rags on their feet, and today they are vastly overweight, and have things like public schools, access to college, cars, AC units, TV’s, video game systems, smart phones, all of the same brands as the rich, and not to mention clothing and other status symbols… You want to cry about material wealth, please put it in perspective…

You won’t, because it destroys your false narrative, but that is besides the point.

Of course you need to eliminate billions of people from your narrative, because if you were honest, you’d have to not say the bullshit you are.

Great, good for you. You parrot their talking points quite well though.

Nope. They keep my gun rights and loonies like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren from any actual positions of power.

Is it always beneficial? Nope. But I am sure happy that free people can join together in a collective bargaining group like the NRA and fight to protect the rights of the people. I’ll take the bad because of the greater good.

You mean monetary incentive to create new things? GASP! How awful of an idea. How dare we reward hard work, ingenuity and sacrifice. For shame.

We agree here.

You think amnesty is for corporations? lmao… How cute. I suppose LBJ strong armed the Democrats into finally agreeing with republicans because the party suddenly changed a couple hundred years of hating black people too right?

We agree again…

Yes, bashing government is easy, very easy.

Again, because we have a market system that isn’t completely tamped down due to government tinkering. You can pretend this all away if you’d like to, but you’re ignoring basic economics, which doesn’t surprise me, Europe loves to do so.

Ummmm… I’m not sure you’ve ever been to a doctor in America then. You can see the costs of everything, down to every drop of medication they give you.

You made the original claims, and you want me to do your research for you… Not surprised you’re a fan of the European “money for nothing” model.

Observable objective fact: no one said what you claim. I state this.

Subjective opinion: what you feel was being implied.

Your conclusion: I’m being disingenuous.

lmao.

[quote]Lastly, I have kept my tone straight and civil. I would rather the conversation stayed well out of the mud-slinging pit. It’s quite all right to express disagreement without resorting to colourful language of this sort: “horse shit as you pile on, ignorant of actual definitions of words.”
[/quote]

Suck it up Nancy. People want to stereotype American’s as “uncivilized” flag worshipers, I’ll give you what you want.

63

There are many straw men in your arguments, but it’s really not worth further insults to illustrate them.

You really don’t need to shout/insult your interlocutors into submission. Nobody gains anything that way.

I concede defeat. This sort of online discussion is truly worthless.

64

[quote]ddinante wrote:
A society with that much wealth and that many poor is just wrong
[/quote]

Hilarious and typical.

65

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ddinante wrote:
A society with that much wealth and that many poor is just wrong, [/quote]

Please name a time and society in human history where there was not “poor and rich” people. Please show the gap in America is wider than those examples you are never going to find.

Please espouse on how, 160 years ago the poor in America were starving and wearing rags on their feet, and today they are vastly overweight, and have things like public schools, access to college, cars, AC units, TV’s, video game systems, smart phones, all of the same brands as the rich, and not to mention clothing and other status symbols… You want to cry about material wealth, please put it in perspective…

You won’t, because it destroys your false narrative, but that is besides the point.

Of course you need to eliminate billions of people from your narrative, because if you were honest, you’d have to not say the bullshit you are.

Great, good for you. You parrot their talking points quite well though.

Nope. They keep my gun rights and loonies like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren from any actual positions of power.

Is it always beneficial? Nope. But I am sure happy that free people can join together in a collective bargaining group like the NRA and fight to protect the rights of the people. I’ll take the bad because of the greater good.

You mean monetary incentive to create new things? GASP! How awful of an idea. How dare we reward hard work, ingenuity and sacrifice. For shame.

We agree here.

You think amnesty is for corporations? lmao… How cute. I suppose LBJ strong armed the Democrats into finally agreeing with republicans because the party suddenly changed a couple hundred years of hating black people too right?

We agree again…

Yes, bashing government is easy, very easy.

Again, because we have a market system that isn’t completely tamped down due to government tinkering. You can pretend this all away if you’d like to, but you’re ignoring basic economics, which doesn’t surprise me, Europe loves to do so.

Ummmm… I’m not sure you’ve ever been to a doctor in America then. You can see the costs of everything, down to every drop of medication they give you.

You made the original claims, and you want me to do your research for you… Not surprised you’re a fan of the European “money for nothing” model.

Observable objective fact: no one said what you claim. I state this.

Subjective opinion: what you feel was being implied.

Your conclusion: I’m being disingenuous.

lmao.

[quote]Lastly, I have kept my tone straight and civil. I would rather the conversation stayed well out of the mud-slinging pit. It’s quite all right to express disagreement without resorting to colourful language of this sort: “horse shit as you pile on, ignorant of actual definitions of words.”
[/quote]

Suck it up Nancy. People want to stereotype American’s as “uncivilized” flag worshipers, I’ll give you what you want. [/quote]

Isn’t universal healthcare a great example of the free market working? The majority vote in a system where out taxes pay for healthcare.
The HNS then offers a company to provide all the equipment needed for the NHS. This means massive competition between companies to provide the NHS which means we get the best equipment as cheap as possible on the free market.

The U.S government allows drug companies to decide how much they will sell their drugs to the government for medicare etc. In a real free market system you get drugs cheaper because of competition with other drug companies and companies who provide medcial equipment. That is why some drugs that cost 25p a pill in France cost 50 dollars a pill in the U.S

Would you support what some of the founders advocated which was universal healthcare with the money raised through the income tax? Of all the tax money Americans pay for things they don’t need they could easily afford the best universal healthcare system on the planet which would drive competition between companies and offer the best value.

66

[quote]ddinante wrote:
There are many straw men in your arguments, but it’s really not worth further insults to illustrate them.[/quote]

Translation: I can’t debate the substance of your posts.

translation: I’ll take the “attack the man” approach because I can’t debate the substance of your post.

Translation: You’ve challenged my world view and my cognitive dissonance won’t allow me to continue, because I can’t refute what you said.

67

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

Isn’t universal healthcare a great example of the free market working? The majority vote in a system where out taxes pay for healthcare.
.[/quote]

newspeak or do you not understand “free market”?

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Just a hunch (and I have excellent hunches if I do say so myself) but I’d bet a boatload of French wine, German beer and British chips that a creationist lawmaker would be one of your very best allies when it comes to protecting individual liberty as compared to the alternatives.
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure a creationist lawmaker would be one of the most repressive lawmakers out there.

At least to those who aren’t Christians.

69

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

Isn’t universal healthcare a great example of the free market working? The majority vote in a system where out taxes pay for healthcare.
.[/quote]

newspeak or do you not understand “free market”?

[/quote]

But they are operating on a free market, hence why a pill costs the NHS pennies because the companies compete to provide the service. I assume you are not an anarchist so why couldn’t the government which we pay taxes to provide services on our behalf, use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.

70

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Isn’t universal healthcare a great example of the free market working? [/quote]

No. Voting into existence =/= free market.

It’s a good example of a mob rule mentality.

71

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

Isn’t universal healthcare a great example of the free market working? The majority vote in a system where out taxes pay for healthcare.
.[/quote]

newspeak or do you not understand “free market”?

[/quote]

But they are operating on a free market, hence why a pill costs the NHS pennies because the companies compete to provide the service. I assume you are not an anarchist so why couldn’t the government which we pay taxes to provide services on our behalf, use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.
[/quote]

Pills only cost pennies (If that’s accurate…) because they’re subsidized by tax dollars ie companies compete for subsidies. Citizens have no choice or say in how tax dollars are spent beyond what the majority of Congress wants to spend it on. That’s definitely not a free market.

72

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

But they are operating on a free market, [/quote]

No, they are operating on central planning. There is zero free market. You must pay taxes, and you must have the government administer your healthcare. You have no choice. The companies must work within the government guidelines which require a price ceiling.

Your idea of a free market is warped.

It costs pennies because the government isn’t going to pay the true market costs for it.

I’m not saying they can’t. I’m saying your example isn’t a free market, nor is any market with forced participation.

[quote]use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.

[/quote]

Just what I want… The lowest bidding doctor…

There is a reason I bill out higher than other accountants, and my lawyers charge $800 an hour and not $225.

73

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
But they are operating on a free market, hence why a pill costs the NHS pennies because the companies compete to provide the service. I assume you are not an anarchist so why couldn’t the government which we pay taxes to provide services on our behalf, use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.
[/quote]

You’re making a good point and obscuring it by misusing the term “free market.” You’re right about the much-greater bargaining power of a total collective. But it isn’t a free market. The first line of Investopedia’s write-up for “free market” is this: “A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.” (That’s one of hundreds of examples.) If the state is taking your money and bargaining with it in order to provide you with a cheap service to which you are obligated to subscribe, this isn’t “little or no government control.” It’s the opposite.

74

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

But they are operating on a free market, [/quote]

No, they are operating on central planning. There is zero free market. You must pay taxes, and you must have the government administer your healthcare. You have no choice. The companies must work within the government guidelines which require a price ceiling.

Your idea of a free market is warped.

It costs pennies because the government isn’t going to pay the true market costs for it.

I’m not saying they can’t. I’m saying your example isn’t a free market, nor is any market with forced participation.

[quote]use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.

[/quote]

Just what I want… The lowest bidding doctor…

There is a reason I bill out higher than other accountants, and my lawyers charge $800 an hour and not $225.
[/quote]

When the government pays for weapons they are using the free market, you don’t have a choice about that. That does not negate the free market, the state can also use the taxes we give it to use private companies.

Do you think the government should collect taxes and use them and if so wouldn’t them using the free market to get the best company with the most competitive prices be a damn site better than allowing drug companies to tell the government what they will pay, with tax payer money?

Not only individuals can use the free market.

As for it is cheaper because the government won’t pay market cost for it is not true. That is the market cost. The reason it is so much cheaper is because there is competition. Private companies going for contracts means they can offer low prices because they will make huge profits if they get the contract.

As opposed to American forms of social medicine where the government just lets drug companies tell them what they will pay. Which has no competitive element to it.

75

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
But they are operating on a free market, hence why a pill costs the NHS pennies because the companies compete to provide the service. I assume you are not an anarchist so why couldn’t the government which we pay taxes to provide services on our behalf, use that money to provide the best possible healthcare for the cheapest cost, which is the heart of the free market.
[/quote]

You’re making a good point and obscuring it by misusing the term “free market.” You’re right about the much-greater bargaining power of a total collective. But it isn’t a free market. The first line of Investopedia’s write-up for “free market” is this: “A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.” (That’s one of hundreds of examples.) If the state is taking your money and bargaining with it in order to provide you with a cheap service to which you are obligated to subscribe, this isn’t “little or no government control.” It’s the opposite.[/quote]

But that tax money will be collected anyway it isn’t taken for healthcare, it is taken for the running of the state and maintenance of society. You don’t have to use government healthcare, you can go private.

Also the government is not involved in the setting of prices etc. the private companies are, the government uses taxes to pick the one offering the lowest prices and best equipment. A state can also access the market can they not?

76

I’m sorry YamatoDamashii92, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a free market is and how government intervention manipulates the supply and demand curve. That’s not a knock on you, you’re just misinformed.

Here is a down and dirty example:

http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/1896.html

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m sorry YamatoDamashii92, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a free market is and how government intervention manipulates the supply and demand curve. That’s not a knock on you, you’re just misinformed.

Here is a down and dirty example:

http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/1896.html[/quote]

I understand what you guys are saying but my point is the free market exists and the government can use it with collective wealth. This in no way restricts the market.

Unless I am talking to Anarchists which I would have a separate debate with in regards to philosophical differences, I don’t get the difference of opinion on the matter.

The government does not use government workers central planning to build m14’s. It buys them from private companies who operate on the free market. I am not saying the government should restrict and control the market I am saying the government like individuals can utilise that with common funds.

If you mean it isn’t a free market because of the idea o universal healthcare we are not talking about the same thing. So change it to an option by the U.S government where you can buy into a healthcare plan for an extra 5% tax a year and you are covered. They then allow companies to bid for healthcare contracts to supply equipment, drugs etc.

Is that an example of the free market?

78

Maybe you should stay in Europe.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

When the government pays for weapons they are using the free market, you don’t have a choice about that. That does not negate the free market, the state can also use the taxes we give it to use private companies.[/quote]

Do you work for Colt? I mean it’s starting to make sense they lost the contract now if you do.

I’m am not opposed to taxation, no. I’m opposed to too much taxation.

You don’t understand how markets work or pricing, like at all, lol.

Holy shit dude. You contradict yourself here and dont’ even know it.

The government says "make me a bid, I will take the lowest bid, and then you will have EXCLUSIVE rights to provide that commodity, by which I, the government, guarantee demand.

That is not free market, and that isn’t “best market price”. It is under cutting market price because they can make up for it in volume which is guaranteed by the government.

AT best it is a state sponsored temporary monopoly.

[quote] As opposed to American forms of social medicine where the government just lets drug companies tell them what they will pay. Which has no competitive element to it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand competition either.

79

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Maybe you should stay in Europe.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

When the government pays for weapons they are using the free market, you don’t have a choice about that. That does not negate the free market, the state can also use the taxes we give it to use private companies.[/quote]

Do you work for Colt? I mean it’s starting to make sense they lost the contract now if you do.

I’m am not opposed to taxation, no. I’m opposed to too much taxation.

You don’t understand how markets work or pricing, like at all, lol.

Holy shit dude. You contradict yourself here and dont’ even know it.

The government says "make me a bid, I will take the lowest bid, and then you will have EXCLUSIVE rights to provide that commodity, by which I, the government, guarantee demand.

That is not free market, and that isn’t “best market price”. It is under cutting market price because they can make up for it in volume which is guaranteed by the government.

AT best it is a state sponsored temporary monopoly.

[quote] As opposed to American forms of social medicine where the government just lets drug companies tell them what they will pay. Which has no competitive element to it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand competition either.
[/quote]

You seem to think that if the government uses tax money that you would have to pay anyway, for healthcare that is your only option for healthcare. You can go private and use non government healthcare. If the government did not increase tax rates and cut the defence budget, other social programs and used it for healthcare would that be something you would support?

Also why do you get all angry whenever anyone shares a different opinion. Do you do that in real life? It seems tiring to be that on edge all the time.

You say you are not opposed to taxation:

“The US federal price tag for the Iraq war including an estimate for veterans’ medical and disability costs into the future is about $2.2 trillion dollars. The cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to be close to $4.4 trillion, not including future interest costs on borrowing for the wars.”

That could of paid for healthcare. The taxes are already there for free healthcare, no need to raise them. It is mismanagement of the money that is already paid.

Also if you are opposed to government buying healthcare are you opposed to them buying guns? If you oppose one because it in your opinion restricts or manipulates the market.

80

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
I understand what you guys are saying but my point is the free market exists and the government can use it with collective wealth. This in no way restricts the market.
[/quote]

A market in which services are exchanged by providers, with a payer who is the government and whose funds are taxes, is not a free market by any useful definition of the term. I understand what you’re saying – that, considered from one narrow angle, it’s a sort of partial meta-free market in that the exchange between the government and the providers is free (ish). But the fact that it’s the government, using public money extracted by compulsion in order to provide a compulsory service to those from whom the money was extracted – this gives the lie to the “free market” moniker. Again, every definition of free market is one in which the phrase “little or not government involvement” figures prominently. The government is involved as a principal actor in your scenario —> no free market.

But anyway, you’re right about the fact that group fragmentation hinders cost-cutting.