Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Poser Boy wrote:
The poverty rate in Chile has RECENTLY increased because of the Housing Bubble Crisis (it even says so in the article YOU posted). But yet you continue to act like you've actually proven something. You make Isaac look like a fucking genius. You're simply THE most delusional poster I've EVER seen...


There goes Poser Boy making excuses again. There is no housing bubble issue in regards to the excessively high Chilean poverty rates. You just make this shit up as you go along. There isn't even a mention of any sort of housing bubble in any of the links I provided. Look for yourselves, then point finger at Poser Boy and laugh...

No mention of a housing bubble in this link... http://www.chileno.co.uk/chile/child-po ... c_CL4bD-Ul

Not a single mention of a housing bubble in this link either... http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001 ... 67839.html

Hmmm...odd...not a single mention or use of the term "housing bubble" to be found in my third link... http://www.boston.com/news/education/20 ... story.html

Image


Funny you should mention Isaac BTW. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
The poverty rate in Chile has RECENTLY increased because of the Housing Bubble Crisis (it even says so in the article YOU posted). But yet you continue to act like you've actually proven something. You make Isaac look like a fucking genius. You're simply THE most delusional poster I've EVER seen...


There goes Poser Boy making excuses again. There is no housing bubble issue in regards to the excessively high Chilean poverty rates. You just make this shit up as you go along. There isn't even a mention of any sort of housing bubble in any of the links I provided. Look for yourselves, then point finger at Poser Boy and laugh...

No mention of a housing bubble in this link... http://www.chileno.co.uk/chile/child-po ... c_CL4bD-Ul

Not a single mention of a housing bubble in this link either... http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001 ... 67839.html

Hmmm...odd...not a single mention or use of the term "housing bubble" to be found in my third link... http://www.boston.com/news/education/20 ... story.html


Funny you should mention Isaac BTW. :lol:


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001 ... 67839.html

READ the above article AGAIN. The Global Financial Crisis = the Housing Bubble Crisis. It's the same god damn thing. It's just a different title.

Holy. Jumping. Shit-balls, you're stupid. :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Poser Boy wrote:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90864/7067839.html

READ the above article AGAIN. The Global Financial Crisis = the Housing Bubble Crisis. It's the same god damn thing. It's just a different title.

Holy. Jumping. Shit-balls, you're stupid. :roll:


The article specifically states...

Rising unemployment was the main reason among many factors for more people slipping under the poverty line...

The article also specifically states...

...and the global financial crisis had made the unemployment situation even worse in 2009.

...meaning that the high unemployment levels and rise in poverty were in place prior to the global financial crisis.


Poser Boy =

Image



Get a fucking clue and stop yanking everybody's chain Poser Boy.



btw...Also in the article...Suck on this Poser Boy...

...other factors leading to the rise in poverty include a persistence of inequality in income distribution; a rise in food prices worldwide in 2007-2008, ... and the limitations of Chile's export-oriented economy.

All prior to the global financial crisis. :lol:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90864/7067839.html

READ the above article AGAIN. The Global Financial Crisis = the Housing Bubble Crisis. It's the same god damn thing. It's just a different title.

Holy. Jumping. Shit-balls, you're stupid. :roll:


The article specifically states...

Rising unemployment was the main reason among many factors for more people slipping under the poverty line...


No shit, Sherlock. Your point?

tweedle-dumb wrote:
The article also specifically states...

...and the global financial crisis had made the unemployment situation even worse in 2009.

...meaning that the high unemployment levels and rise in poverty were in place prior to the global financial crisis.

Get a fucking clue and stop yanking everybody's chain Poser Boy.

btw...Also in the article...Suck on this Poser Boy...

...other factors leading to the rise in poverty include a persistence of inequality in income distribution; a rise in food prices worldwide in 2007-2008, ... and the limitations of Chile's export-oriented economy.

All prior to the global financial crisis. :lol:


The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.

You aren't for real, are you? NO ONE can be THIS stupid?! :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Poser Boy wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Poser Boy wrote:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90864/7067839.html

READ the above article AGAIN. The Global Financial Crisis = the Housing Bubble Crisis. It's the same god damn thing. It's just a different title.

Holy. Jumping. Shit-balls, you're stupid. :roll:


The article specifically states...

Rising unemployment was the main reason among many factors for more people slipping under the poverty line...


No shit, Sherlock. Your point?

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
The article also specifically states...

...and the global financial crisis had made the unemployment situation even worse in 2009.

...meaning that the high unemployment levels and rise in poverty were in place prior to the global financial crisis.

Get a fucking clue and stop yanking everybody's chain Poser Boy.

btw...Also in the article...Suck on this Poser Boy...

...other factors leading to the rise in poverty include a persistence of inequality in income distribution; a rise in food prices worldwide in 2007-2008, ... and the limitations of Chile's export-oriented economy.

All prior to the global financial crisis. :lol:


The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.


Image


It's ok to admit that you're wrong. Suck it up.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.


It's ok to admit that you're wrong. Suck it up.


I'll admit when I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. But I'm not wrong here. Deal with it...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR .THE. WORLD.:

The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
So assuming you're right, which you aren't, then it should be easy for you to deduce that the privatized system failed to stop the higher than most countries escalation of poverty rates in Chile during the global financial crisis, and actually made it worse, hence being so high on the poverty rate list in my link above.

...but I already know that you are incapable of accepting statistical data that disproves your conspiracy theories....
Image


Someday when you're done posing Poser Boy, there is an almost chance that someday you'll get it....when pigs fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 am
Posts: 502
The average global economic cycle lasts 32 years. This current cycle is at year 42. Poverty is attributable to everything economic, i.e. the sinking value of the US dollar, so forget about the health care scenario. Businesses are cutting jobs and increasing costs so that they can stay afloat due to the dollar holding less purchasing power than ever. The housing bubble burst of 2007 will be but a blip on the map for what is to come.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
There's a few doomsday profits on here...just one problem,

They say it'll kill ya, but they won't say when.

Everyone's a wannabe Nostradamus.

...and that's been going on since time immortal. :|

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
I would tend to disagree with the idea that the US health system can be described as socialized in the way that the health system in the UK is, where e.g. even medicine is subsidised. As this site points out :

"The term Socialized Medicine is used to describe a system of publicly administered national health care. This system can range from programs in which the government runs hospitals and health organizations to programs in which there is national universal health care. Although, these programs are often associated with communist run countries, every Western Country except the United States has some form of socialized medicine. England has had a socialized program since 1948. That year, the country passed the National Health Service Act, which provided free physician and hospital services for all citizens. Recently, the program has been amended to include small fees for doctor services; however, the concept is still intact."

http://jmchar.people.wm.edu/Kin493/socmed.html


That report is obviously not correct because the US healthcare system IS at least partially socialized.



Ah, the Master Debater once again provides compelling evidence for his claims.

How about a concrete example?

My father is currently undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer in France under their socialized medical system. The hospital which is treating him is 50 km away. Every weekday, a taxi picks him up and drives him there and back - a round trip of 100 km. As my father's condition is described as chronique (he also has Parkinson's and is recovering from a spine infection) the taxi is paid for by the health system (not to mention the treatment). My question is, how many km of the taxi journey would the partially socialized medical system in the US pay?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Caputh wrote:
My father is currently undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer in France under their socialized medical system. The hospital which is treating him is 50 km away. Every weekday, a taxi picks him up and drives him there and back - a round trip of 100 km. As my father's condition is described as chronique (he also has Parkinson's and is recovering from a spine infection) the taxi is paid for by the health system (not to mention the treatment). My question is, how many km of the taxi journey would the partially socialized medical system in the US pay?

It wouldn't pay for a taxi. The hospital/DR's office here can give you a "chit" that's redeemable through the hospital or Dr.'s office. Most taxi's won't give you a ride if you tell them up front what your doing. It takes up to a month for them to be reimbursed for the ride. Once there, they leave and you have to find a ride back. The trouble is, in a smaller community you only have one or two taxi companies and they let each other know what's going on. So you the best way to get around that is to ask for the hospital to call a cab for you. That way they have to come out, whether it's for you or not and they can't refuse you a ride either. CA. State Law.

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1842
The Veterans Administration pays me mileage to and from my appointments. If you want to see how an American government-run medical organization operates, check out the VA. They do just fine by me, and I don't deserve it. No reason why everybody can't have this.

My brother just got lucky. The Catholics at St. Francis just paid for his triple bypass. I don't really understand why...he's poor but it's of his own desire. He always complains about people on welfare getting free stuff, and he always said he would die before accepting charity. When push comes to shove, though...o well, another Zappa fan lives on...he's not religious at all and not much of a credit to society, but they had mercy on him.

This is the sort of thing Ron Paul mentions when he talks about health care and welfare. In the past religious folks took care of the poor...maybe not so well, but in the end I'm not sure people should depend on government to help them, when in reality, they can join together to help each other.

It doesn't have to be religious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
So assuming you're right, which you aren't, then it should be easy for you to deduce that the privatized system failed to stop the higher than most countries escalation of poverty rates in Chile during the global financial crisis, and actually made it worse, hence being so high on the poverty rate list in my link above.

...but I already know that you are incapable of accepting statistical data that disproves your conspiracy theories....

Someday when you're done posing Poser Boy, there is an almost chance that someday you'll get it....when pigs fly.


It's ALWAYS entertaining reading your BS, especially since you actually think you're right, despite the FACT you're not. Re-read your own articles. :roll:

SON. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR .THE. WORLD.:

The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.

tiboudre wrote:
The average global economic cycle lasts 32 years. This current cycle is at year 42. Poverty is attributable to everything economic, i.e. the sinking value of the US dollar, so forget about the health care scenario. Businesses are cutting jobs and increasing costs so that they can stay afloat due to the dollar holding less purchasing power than ever. The housing bubble burst of 2007 will be but a blip on the map for what is to come.


BINGO!

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
That report is obviously not correct because the US healthcare system IS at least partially socialized.


Ah, the Master Debater once again provides compelling evidence for his claims.

How about a concrete example?

My father is currently undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer in France under their socialized medical system. The hospital which is treating him is 50 km away. Every weekday, a taxi picks him up and drives him there and back - a round trip of 100 km. As my father's condition is described as chronique (he also has Parkinson's and is recovering from a spine infection) the taxi is paid for by the health system (not to mention the treatment). My question is, how many km of the taxi journey would the partially socialized medical system in the US pay?


Why do always do this? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread?! You damn well know what I said is correct. There's PLENTY of evidence out there to back it up. Most people on this board are Americans and they're not disputing that (apart from tweedle-dumb).

But just to give you a few examples of how bad a mostly socialized healthcare system is. Take Canada...

1. In the early fall of 2011, my Mother fell after tripping on a pine cone and broke her wrist. She went to the hospital for surgery. A day later after the surgery had been completed, she returned home and thought everything was fine. It wasn't. Hours later, she started to have severe respiratory problems and other symptoms she'd never suffered before. Why? Because she contracted "C.diff" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile ) in the hospital. After the first round of antibiotics seemed to kill it a MONTH later, she returned home. But a week later, the same symptoms came back again. She then had to return to the same hospital and undergo a second round of antibiotics. FINALLY, a MONTH later, she returned home and everything was fine.

Now here's the kicker: during her stay at the hospital, her doctor told her about a controversial procedure that is illegal in Canada. It's administered by taking a healthy piece of excrement from a family member and inserting it well into the rectum to kill the unhealthy bacteria. And apparently, it would've only taken less than 24 HOURS to take effect and then she would've been able to go home. But the while the doctor wanted to implement the procedure, he couldn't since he'd lose his license if he did because of the illegality of the procedure. We weren't upset at him because we understood his predicament. In fact, we thanked him for telling us about it. Amazing, huh? All this, despite a success rate of apparently 90%. We were considering flying her to another country if the second round of antibiotics hadn't of done the trick. And we later found out from our local news that several people who suffered from "C.diff", and who also contracted it from that hospital, DIED.

2. My Mother suffered a mitigated TIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_ischemic_attack) right after Xmas last year. The meds they gave her have been excellent and have apparently either stopped the small blockage from moving and/or has eroded most of it. BUT, she's been waiting for potentially corrective surgery for more than SIX MONTHS now. Last week, they FINALLY made an appointment so she could discuss this with a doctor next week.

:roll:

The point here is that if more CHOICES were available, she wouldn't have had to endure this BULLSHIT, nor would almost anyone else. :x

I'm sorry to hear about your Father and I truly hope he gets better soon. BUT I will say this: while the immediate benefits of a socialized system may be good, ultimately and in the long run, it's not good at all. Why else do you think most UK/European countries are worse off than we are economically right now? It's not only because of the complexities surrounding the Euro and the Housing Bubble Crisis, but also because of the socialized systems there that creates the illusion through taxation that healthcare, education, etc., are free but they're ultimately NOT. They're actually MORE expensive without privatization. THAT is why you're worse off than we are right now. Governments almost always fuck things up when they interfere...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
A rope leash wrote:
The Veterans Administration pays me mileage to and from my appointments. If you want to see how an American government-run medical organization operates, check out the VA. They do just fine by me, and I don't deserve it. No reason why everybody can't have this.

My brother just got lucky. The Catholics at St. Francis just paid for his triple bypass. I don't really understand why...he's poor but it's of his own desire. He always complains about people on welfare getting free stuff, and he always said he would die before accepting charity. When push comes to shove, though...o well, another Zappa fan lives on...he's not religious at all and not much of a credit to society, but they had mercy on him.

This is the sort of thing Ron Paul mentions when he talks about health care and welfare. In the past religious folks took care of the poor...maybe not so well, but in the end I'm not sure people should depend on government to help them, when in reality, they can join together to help each other.

It doesn't have to be religious.

I'm glad the VA's doin' ya right, rope, and your lucky to have a brother. He ain't heavy he's my bro'....still possible with y'all?

I remember singing for the 1st southern Baptist church's old folks home up until I was 9. Every other Sunday or at least 2 times a month, an RN (resident nurse) was always on hand all the time too. 8)

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
[

Why do always do this? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread?! You damn well know what I said is correct. There's PLENTY of evidence out there to back it up. Most people on this board are Americans and they're not disputing that (apart from tweedle-dumb).

But just to give you a few examples of how bad a mostly socialized healthcare system is. Take Canada...

1. In the early fall of 2011, my Mother fell after tripping on a pine cone and broke her wrist. She went to the hospital for surgery. A day later after the surgery had been completed, she returned home and thought everything was fine. It wasn't. Hours later, she started to have severe respiratory problems and other symptoms she'd never suffered before. Why? Because she contracted "C.diff" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile ) in the hospital. After the first round of antibiotics seemed to kill it a MONTH later, she returned home. But a week later, the same symptoms came back again. She then had to return to the same hospital and undergo a second round of antibiotics. FINALLY, a MONTH later, she returned home and everything was fine.

Now here's the kicker: during her stay at the hospital, her doctor told her about a controversial procedure that is illegal in Canada. It's administered by taking a healthy piece of excrement from a family member and inserting it well into the rectum to kill the unhealthy bacteria. And apparently, it would've only taken less than 24 HOURS to take effect and then she would've been able to go home. But the while the doctor wanted to implement the procedure, he couldn't since he'd lose his license if he did because of the illegality of the procedure. We weren't upset at him because we understood his predicament. In fact, we thanked him for telling us about it. Amazing, huh? All this, despite a success rate of apparently 90%. We were considering flying her to another country if the second round of antibiotics hadn't of done the trick. And we later found out from our local news that several people who suffered from "C.diff", and who also contracted it from that hospital, DIED.

2. My Mother suffered a mitigated TIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_ischemic_attack) right after Xmas last year. The meds they gave her have been excellent and have apparently either stopped the small blockage from moving and/or has eroded most of it. BUT, she's been waiting for potentially corrective surgery for more than SIX MONTHS now. Last week, they FINALLY made an appointment so she could discuss this with a doctor next week.

:roll:

The point here is that if more CHOICES were available, she wouldn't have had to endure this BULLSHIT, nor would almost anyone else. :x

I'm sorry to hear about your Father and I truly hope he gets better soon. BUT I will say this: while the immediate benefits of a socialized system may be good, ultimately and in the long run, it's not good at all. Why else do you think most UK/European countries are worse off than we are economically right now? It's not only because of the complexities surrounding the Euro and the Housing Bubble Crisis, but also because of the socialized systems there that creates the illusion through taxation that healthcare, education, etc., are free but they're ultimately NOT. They're actually MORE expensive without privatization. THAT is why you're worse off than we are right now. Governments almost always fuck things up when they interfere...


I'm sorry to hear about the bad treatment your mother received and I'm also grateful for your comments about my father. However he is actually receiving very good treatment and is responding very well.
I did watch the video you posted, but found the same faults as I found with "Sicko"; i.e. it's opinion, and polemical opinion, not fact, at least for me.
As regards the "partially socialized" US health system, earlier on in this thread you appeared to be making the claim that the UK's health system was in any way comparable to the US system. I, having lived the first 22 years of my life in the UK, can say with some certainty that I don't think that such a comparison is valid. A socialized medical system basically requires full cover for all citizens (and in a number of countries for non-citizens, too c.f. my father in France).
On the other hand, I would no longer like to be treated in the UK for a serious ailment. This is down to the fact that IMO the NHS has been seriously underfunded. But there are other European countries which have socialized medical systems where I would have no such qualms e.g. France or Germany.
To your point about the economies of European countries being decimated by high health costs, I think your argument would hold up for the UK and possibly France (even though I personally think that the real reasons lie elsewhere). Yet how would one explain the economic resilience of Germany through the economic crisis, where they have a socialized medical system, too? Most would agree that Germany is better off economically than the US today.
Remember when I posted about my health care status and you replied by posting a stupid Bush face? Perhaps I didn't explain fully enough, but actually a two tier system of the kind you appear to aspire to is in place in Germany already. First you have the people who are state insured. That means that a % of their pay is automatically removed from their wage packet for health insurance. The amount depends on the income. The higher the income, the more you pay. The other half is paid by the employer. The amount you pay is indicated on your pay check every month.
There is also private insurance where one can pay a slightly larger sum for marginally better treatment. This generally means you go to the front of the queue, you can opt for a single-bed room at hospital and the doctors take a bit more time with their diagnoses. Why? Because you pay up front, then hand the bill into the insurance, who then reimburse you. A number of doctors I have talked to in Germany (e.g. my father-in-law) claim that the bulk of their income comes from private patients.
In my case, as a civil servant, it is more financially viable for me personally to be privately insured. The difference between civil servants and other privately insured employees is that 1/3 of the costs are covered by the insurance and 2/3 are covered by the employee, i.e. the state.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Why do always do this? Did you watch the link at the beginning of this thread?! You damn well know what I said is correct. There's PLENTY of evidence out there to back it up. Most people on this board are Americans and they're not disputing that (apart from tweedle-dumb).

But just to give you a few examples of how bad a mostly socialized healthcare system is. Take Canada...

1. In the early fall of 2011, my Mother fell after tripping on a pine cone and broke her wrist. She went to the hospital for surgery. A day later after the surgery had been completed, she returned home and thought everything was fine. It wasn't. Hours later, she started to have severe respiratory problems and other symptoms she'd never suffered before. Why? Because she contracted "C.diff" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile ) in the hospital. After the first round of antibiotics seemed to kill it a MONTH later, she returned home. But a week later, the same symptoms came back again. She then had to return to the same hospital and undergo a second round of antibiotics. FINALLY, a MONTH later, she returned home and everything was fine.

Now here's the kicker: during her stay at the hospital, her doctor told her about a controversial procedure that is illegal in Canada. It's administered by taking a healthy piece of excrement from a family member and inserting it well into the rectum to kill the unhealthy bacteria. And apparently, it would've only taken less than 24 HOURS to take effect and then she would've been able to go home. But the while the doctor wanted to implement the procedure, he couldn't since he'd lose his license if he did because of the illegality of the procedure. We weren't upset at him because we understood his predicament. In fact, we thanked him for telling us about it. Amazing, huh? All this, despite a success rate of apparently 90%. We were considering flying her to another country if the second round of antibiotics hadn't of done the trick. And we later found out from our local news that several people who suffered from "C.diff", and who also contracted it from that hospital, DIED.

2. My Mother suffered a mitigated TIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_ischemic_attack) right after Xmas last year. The meds they gave her have been excellent and have apparently either stopped the small blockage from moving and/or has eroded most of it. BUT, she's been waiting for potentially corrective surgery for more than SIX MONTHS now. Last week, they FINALLY made an appointment so she could discuss this with a doctor next week.

:roll:

The point here is that if more CHOICES were available, she wouldn't have had to endure this BULLSHIT, nor would almost anyone else. :x

I'm sorry to hear about your Father and I truly hope he gets better soon. BUT I will say this: while the immediate benefits of a socialized system may be good, ultimately and in the long run, it's not good at all. Why else do you think most UK/European countries are worse off than we are economically right now? It's not only because of the complexities surrounding the Euro and the Housing Bubble Crisis, but also because of the socialized systems there that creates the illusion through taxation that healthcare, education, etc., are free but they're ultimately NOT. They're actually MORE expensive without privatization. THAT is why you're worse off than we are right now. Governments almost always fuck things up when they interfere...


I'm sorry to hear about the bad treatment your mother received and I'm also grateful for your comments about my father. However he is actually receiving very good treatment and is responding very well.


Thank you. And that's great to hear.

Caputh wrote:
I did watch the video you posted, but found the same faults as I found with "Sicko"; i.e. it's opinion, and polemical opinion, not fact, at least for me.


Yes, the segment is heavily bias, BUT it does explicitly explain why a privatized system (or at the very least, a primarily privatized one) would be a mostly better option.

Caputh wrote:
As regards the "partially socialized" US health system, earlier on in this thread you appeared to be making the claim that the UK's health system was in any way comparable to the US system. I, having lived the first 22 years of my life in the UK, can say with some certainty that I don't think that such a comparison is valid. A socialized medical system basically requires full cover for all citizens (and in a number of countries for non-citizens, too c.f. my father in France).
On the other hand, I would no longer like to be treated in the UK for a serious ailment. This is down to the fact that IMO the NHS has been seriously underfunded. But there are other European countries which have socialized medical systems where I would have no such qualms e.g. France or Germany.
To your point about the economies of European countries being decimated by high health costs, I think your argument would hold up for the UK and possibly France (even though I personally think that the real reasons lie elsewhere). Yet how would one explain the economic resilience of Germany through the economic crisis, where they have a socialized medical system, too? Most would agree that Germany is better off economically than the US today.
Remember when I posted about my health care status and you replied by posting a stupid Bush face? Perhaps I didn't explain fully enough, but actually a two tier system of the kind you appear to aspire to is in place in Germany already. First you have the people who are state insured. That means that a % of their pay is automatically removed from their wage packet for health insurance. The amount depends on the income. The higher the income, the more you pay. The other half is paid by the employer. The amount you pay is indicated on your pay check every month.
There is also private insurance where one can pay a slightly larger sum for marginally better treatment. This generally means you go to the front of the queue, you can opt for a single-bed room at hospital and the doctors take a bit more time with their diagnoses. Why? Because you pay up front, then hand the bill into the insurance, who then reimburse you. A number of doctors I have talked to in Germany (e.g. my father-in-law) claim that the bulk of their income comes from private patients.
In my case, as a civil servant, it is more financially viable for me personally to be privately insured. The difference between civil servants and other privately insured employees is that 1/3 of the costs are covered by the insurance and 2/3 are covered by the employee, i.e. the state.


First of all, when I compared the US and UK healthcare systems, I was trying to point out that both of them have socialized components. But obviously, the UK's system is more socialized than the US'.

Secondly, I don't understand why you state that Germany has a fully socialized system but then give beneficial systematic examples that are essentially privatized principles/options? :? That right there provides more evidence from my point of view than compared to yours.

Thirdly, from what I've seen, Germany is one of the brighter countries, at least economically, than most of the rest of the UK/Europe (apart from maybe Norway - which currently has low employment, but that's mainly because they're Western Europe's largest oil producer and not because of a mostly socialized mixture within their Mixed Economy, like most European countries). If you remember recently, Germany demanded their Gold back (as did several other countries from each other) from the US Federal Reserve (and from the French) BUT the Fed initially refused. They eventually got it back. But that, at least to me, shows that Germans know what lie ahead and that we're in for MUCH worse economic conditions in the near future.

Lastly, I don't think a socialized option should be completely made obsolete...because there are always going to be poverty-stricken individuals that can't afford privatization no matter what. And of course, we can't have people suffering if they can be helped. However, OPTIONS are important. And the ONLY way we're going to get adequate healthcare OPTIONS is by primarily privatizing the system. But for it to work optimally, free market principles would have to be established. Otherwise, its greatest potential won't be reached...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Tinkerbell from Almost Land wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
So assuming you're right, which you aren't, then it should be easy for you to deduce that the privatized system failed to stop the higher than most countries escalation of poverty rates in Chile during the global financial crisis, and actually made it worse, hence being so high on the poverty rate list in my link above.

...but I already know that you are incapable of accepting statistical data that disproves your conspiracy theories....

Someday when you're done posing Poser Boy, there is an almost chance that someday you'll get it....when pigs fly.


It's ALWAYS entertaining reading your BS, especially since you actually think you're right, despite the FACT you're not. Re-read your own articles. :roll:

SON. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR .THE. WORLD.:

The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007, moron.


I notice that you keep glossing over my point. Why are you afraid to address why it is exactly that Chile, with it's mostly privatized system, has among the highest poverty rate increase compared to most modern industrialized countries? The Global Financial meltdown didn't have anywhere as near as the increase of poverty rates in most of the "socialized" countries. Why is that? Why didn't privatization stop Chile for having among the highest poverty rate increase globally?

btw, the repetition of the phrase "The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007" doesn't address the much higher than the median average rate of poverty increase in Chile over the vast majority of modern industrialized countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
First of all, when I compared the US and UK healthcare systems, I was trying to point out that both of them have socialized components. But obviously, the UK's system is more socialized than the US'.

Secondly, I don't understand why you state that Germany has a fully socialized system but then give beneficial systematic examples that are essentially privatized principles/options? :? That right there provides more evidence from my point of view than compared to yours.

Thirdly, from what I've seen, Germany is one of the brighter countries, at least economically, than most of the rest of the UK/Europe (apart from maybe Norway - which currently has low employment, but that's mainly because they're Western Europe's largest oil producer and not because of a mostly socialized mixture within their Mixed Economy, like most European countries). If you remember recently, Germany demanded their Gold back (as did several other countries from each other) from the US Federal Reserve (and from the French) BUT the Fed initially refused. They eventually got it back. But that, at least to me, shows that Germans know what lie ahead and that we're in for MUCH worse economic conditions in the near future.

Lastly, I don't think a socialized option should be completely made obsolete...because there are always going to be poverty-stricken individuals that can't afford privatization no matter what. And of course, we can't have people suffering if they can be helped. However, OPTIONS are important. And the ONLY way we're going to get adequate healthcare OPTIONS is by primarily privatizing the system. But for it to work optimally, free market principles would have to be established. Otherwise, its greatest potential won't be reached...



To your first point I agree.

To your second point, I should point out that you are legally obliged to insure yourself for health in Germany, either using the state insurance or the private insurance. The majority of people are state insured. The major difference between the German socialized medical system and e.g the British, is that it is fairly transparent what your personal contribution to the system is. Like all health systems it has its disadvantages e.g. in financing the care of the elderly, but generally it doesn't seem too bad to me. Btw I am absolutely not averse to agreeing when I think you have a point that is valid. As I've said before, I'm open to argument, even if we often disagree.

Thirdly, I'm afraid I don't agree that Germany's economic resilience is down to oil production. In fact, as far as I know,they hardly produce any oil at all. If you haven't seen "Downfall" - the film about Hitler's last days, you should; there's a great bit when Hitler looks nostalgically at a map and expresses the desire to regain the Rumanian oilfields.
Many would argue that their economic base is the manufacturing industry and the complex system of arbitration between employers and employees, overseen by the state that promotes harmonious industrial relations. In contrast the adoption of a radical free market capitalism in the UK has deprived it of a manufacturing base in favour of service industries, which means that, despite North Sea Oil, they are suffering far more in the economic crisis.

I agree with your fourth point to a degree, but I would obviously put more emphasis on building up a functioning socialized medical system first. I still don't think that this has adequately been achieved in the US yet.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
From my own personal experience, I had to go through a bankruptcy because of medical related costs. At that time in my life, I couldn't afford private insurance and didn't qualify for gov't assistance. The inflated medical costs absolutely destroyed me financially. Not exactly an enjoyable experience. In the US, private options are too costly and gov't options don't cover enough people. Health care reform has been a long time coming here in the states.

For profit health care has been disastrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
I notice that you keep glossing over my point. Why are you afraid to address why it is exactly that Chile, with it's mostly privatized system, has among the highest poverty rate increase compared to most modern industrialized countries? The Global Financial meltdown didn't have anywhere as near as the increase of poverty rates in most of the "socialized" countries. Why is that? Why didn't privatization stop Chile for having among the highest poverty rate increase globally?

btw, the repetition of the phrase "The Global Financial Crisis technically started in August 2007" doesn't address the much higher than the median average rate of poverty increase in Chile over the vast majority of modern industrialized countries.


I've already addressed the above and so have the articles YOU posted (for example, that Chilean poverty rates variate depending on who provides the data) - re-read them. What you're stating has very little truth to it. You have to put things in the proper context because what we do know for certain and what you're not considering, is the FACT that post-Pinochet Chile has been FAR better off than Pinochet Chile in almost ALL possible ways. There is no utopian economic system, nor will there ever be.

Caputh wrote:
To your first point I agree.


Wow! :shock: :wink:

Caputh wrote:
To your second point, I should point out that you are legally obliged to insure yourself for health in Germany, either using the state insurance or the private insurance. The majority of people are state insured. The major difference between the German socialized medical system and e.g the British, is that it is fairly transparent what your personal contribution to the system is. Like all health systems it has its disadvantages e.g. in financing the care of the elderly, but generally it doesn't seem too bad to me. Btw I am absolutely not averse to agreeing when I think you have a point that is valid. As I've said before, I'm open to argument, even if we often disagree.


Ok. But again, your examples of German healthcare efficiency are at the very least, partly based on privatized options, which reinforces my point more than yours.

Caputh wrote:
Thirdly, I'm afraid I don't agree that Germany's economic resilience is down to oil production.


I didn't state that. I was talking about Norway.

Caputh wrote:
...In contrast the adoption of a radical free market capitalism in the UK has deprived it of a manufacturing base in favour of service industries, which means that, despite North Sea Oil, they are suffering far more in the economic crisis.


In recent times, since when has the UK had "radical free market capitalism" or free market capitalism of ANY kind? :?

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
To your first point I agree.


Wow! :shock: :wink:

Caputh wrote:
To your second point, I should point out that you are legally obliged to insure yourself for health in Germany, either using the state insurance or the private insurance. The majority of people are state insured. The major difference between the German socialized medical system and e.g the British, is that it is fairly transparent what your personal contribution to the system is. Like all health systems it has its disadvantages e.g. in financing the care of the elderly, but generally it doesn't seem too bad to me. Btw I am absolutely not averse to agreeing when I think you have a point that is valid. As I've said before, I'm open to argument, even if we often disagree.


Ok. But again, your examples of German healthcare efficiency are at the very least, partly based on privatized options, which reinforces my point more than yours.

Caputh wrote:
Thirdly, I'm afraid I don't agree that Germany's economic resilience is down to oil production.


I didn't state that. I was talking about Norway.

Caputh wrote:
...In contrast the adoption of a radical free market capitalism in the UK has deprived it of a manufacturing base in favour of service industries, which means that, despite North Sea Oil, they are suffering far more in the economic crisis.


In recent times, since when has the UK had "radical free market capitalism" or free market capitalism of ANY kind? :?


It would be slightly hypocritical of me to oppose private health insurance options since, as I've stated above, I'm privately insured myself. Therefore we're bound to be on the same side of the fence to a degree.

To the oil production point - mea culpa. I apologize for completely misreading that part of your post. My only excuse is that I was reading it on a wretched Ipad (how I hate Apple).

The free market capitalism point is, if course, debatable. However, I'll give you my brief version on post war UK political and economic history, if you're interested.
Atlee's Labour government in 1945 brought into being a programme of nationalization of nearly all British industry, the creation of the NHS and an empowerment of the unions. By the late 70s the weaknesses inherent in the implication of many of these measures were becoming apparent. In particular, the government's relations with the Unions had deteriorated to such a degree that there was a major, crippling strike every few months. The Conservative Heath government of he early 70s had, in fact, been brought down by coal miners' strikes. One of Heath's ministers had been Margaret Thatcher and one of her closest associates was Keith Joseph. Both were heavily influenced by both Friedman and Hayek's ideas (i.e. the Chicago and Austrian schools). In fact, Thatcher devotes many pages in both her autobiographies to stressing the influence of the latter on her ideas.

On gaining power her major aims were a) privatization of all nationalized industries b) to break the power of the unions.

During and since her period in power the first aim was achieved with varying degrees of success. A success story would be e.g. British Airways. However, in the manufacturing sector, I would argue that her policies have been an utter disaster. Britain no longer has e.g. a car, steel or ship industry. Their privatization led ultimately to their closure.
The breaking of the power of the coal unions was achieved basically by, after having stock-piled enough coal, deliberately provoking a year-long strike with the coal unions, thus rendering the entire industry totally unprofitable and ripe for closure.

At the centre of every economic decision taken by Thatcher during her period in power, as she states in her autobiographies, was the desire to further Free Market Capitalism
The politicians in GB today, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, basically are still following her lead. Thus British banking and other service industries are the country's main economic "assets".
The only real remnant of Atlee's reforms is the NHS to which the British public, not their politicians, seem sentimentally attached.

Some people think Thatcher did the right thing. Others think she created a culture of greed.

My reaction was to move to Germany. My parents' reaction was to move to France.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
It would be slightly hypocritical of me to oppose private health insurance options since, as I've stated above, I'm privately insured myself. Therefore we're bound to be on the same side of the fence to a degree.


Amazingly, yes.

Caputh wrote:
The free market capitalism point is, if course, debatable. However, I'll give you my brief version on post war UK political and economic history, if you're interested.
Atlee's Labour government in 1945 brought into being a programme of nationalization of nearly all British industry, the creation of the NHS and an empowerment of the unions. By the late 70s the weaknesses inherent in the implication of many of these measures were becoming apparent. In particular, the government's relations with the Unions had deteriorated to such a degree that there was a major, crippling strike every few months. The Conservative Heath government of he early 70s had, in fact, been brought down by coal miners' strikes. One of Heath's ministers had been Margaret Thatcher and one of her closest associates was Keith Joseph. Both were heavily influenced by both Friedman and Hayek's ideas (i.e. the Chicago and Austrian schools). In fact, Thatcher devotes many pages in both her autobiographies to stressing the influence of the latter on her ideas.

On gaining power her major aims were a) privatization of all nationalized industries b) to break the power of the unions.

During and since her period in power the first aim was achieved with varying degrees of success. A success story would be e.g. British Airways. However, in the manufacturing sector, I would argue that her policies have been an utter disaster. Britain no longer has e.g. a car, steel or ship industry. Their privatization led ultimately to their closure.
The breaking of the power of the coal unions was achieved basically by, after having stock-piled enough coal, deliberately provoking a year-long strike with the coal unions, thus rendering the entire industry totally unprofitable and ripe for closure.

At the centre of every economic decision taken by Thatcher during her period in power, as she states in her autobiographies, was the desire to further Free Market Capitalism
The politicians in GB today, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, basically are still following her lead. Thus British banking and other service industries are the country's main economic "assets".
The only real remnant of Atlee's reforms is the NHS to which the British public, not their politicians, seem sentimentally attached.

Some people think Thatcher did the right thing. Others think she created a culture of greed.

My reaction was to move to Germany. My parents' reaction was to move to France.


Regardless of what Thatcher or the like were trying to further establish, I think it's more than a stretch to state that the UK was and/or is rooted in "free market capitalism" (radical or otherwise) at ANY time in recent history, unless you consider recent history the Industrial Revolution or the early 1900s. I think the more appropriate term to describe Thatcher's policies would be "Thatcherism", which did include some free market principles...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:

Regardless of what Thatcher or the like were trying to further establish, I think it's more than a stretch to state that the UK was and/or is rooted in "free market capitalism" (radical or otherwise) at ANY time in recent history, unless you consider recent history the Industrial Revolution or the early 1900s. I think the more appropriate term to describe Thatcher's policies would be "Thatcherism", which did include some free market principles...


Interesting that you should refer back to the 19th Century as Thatcher herself was a great supporter of what she referred to as "Victorian values".
Friedman was also of the belief that "the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-3

I agree that Thatcher founded what is known as "Thatcherism" but think that the ideological base for this was provided by Hayek, Friedman and a strong belief in exactly the kind of free market capitalism you find so attractive.

Milton Friedman said about her in 1979...
"...I salute Margaret Thatcher and her government for their courage and wisdom in moving firmly and promptly to cut Britain’s bureaucratic straitjacket. Britain has enormous latent strength—in human capacities, industrial traditions, financial institutions, social stability. If these can be released from bondage, if incentive can be restored, Britain could once again become a vibrant, dynamic, increasingly productive economy."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defi ... cle/144256

Thatcher on Friedman in 2006...
"Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten. He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science.
I shall greatly miss my old friend's lucid wisdom and mordant humour."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ghter.html

Hayek on Thatcher in 1982...
"It is Mrs Thatcher’s great merit that she has broken the Keynesian immorality of ‘in the long run we are all dead’ and to have concentrated on the long run future of the country irrespective of possible effects on the electors…Mrs Thatcher’s courage makes her put the long run future of the country first.”
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/lady_t ... n_friedman

BTW the above link makes the interesting suggestion that Hayek's major objection to Thatcher's policy was that it was too much influenced by Friedman's monetarist policies, claiming further that Friedman's ideological influence was stronger than Hayek's, although Thatcher and Joseph got along with Hayek better on a personal level.

Finally, Thatcher on Hayek...
“[T}he most powerful critique of socialist planning and the socialist state which I read at this time [the late 1940s], and to which I have returned so often since [is] F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/lady_t ... n_friedman

Regarding the direct connection between Thatcherism and the Free Market, I think this article in the "Economist" sum things up rather well...

"It was then [in 1975] that Mrs Thatcher became a Thatcherite. She was led there by Joseph, who argued that only a free-market approach would save the country. These policies, extremely daring for 1975, became her agenda for the next 15 years.
Mrs Thatcher, a great patriot, had been hurt and bewildered by Britain’s precipitate decline since 1945. Not only had Britain lost an empire; it was, by the mid-1970s, no longer even the leading European power. Joseph’s critique seemed a way to halt, and even reverse, that decline. What Britain now needed was an urgent return to the values of enterprise and self-help."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/ ... thatcher-0

Obviously, it is a value judgement in how far her ideological aims were achieved. As I said before, it was enough to make me want to leave the country.

As to Thatcher's position on the NHS and socialized medicine, I tend to agree with this article which begins thus...

"What was Thatcher’s legacy for the NHS?
By Tom Goodfellow - 10th April 2013 11:37 am

“The NHS is safe in our hands. The elderly are safe in our hands. The sick are safe in our hands. The surgeons are safe in our hands. The nurses are safe in our hands. The doctors are safe in our hands. The dentists are safe in our hands.” - Margaret Thatcher.

As the wall to wall Thatcher coverage continues I have noticed that, so far, there has been little or no mention of her NHS reforms. I think there is a fairly obvious reason for this; simply that she started a process which gathered speed under Tony Blair, and which has now culminated in the Health & Social Care Act which is the biggest and most complex reform of the NHS in its history, and I suspect probably its biggest disaster."

And ends thus...

"So Mrs Thatcher rest in peace. But the NHS “safe in your hands” – I think not!"
http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/tom-g ... or-the-nhs

I apologize to Downer Mydnite for all the links...

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:

Regardless of what Thatcher or the like were trying to further establish, I think it's more than a stretch to state that the UK was and/or is rooted in "free market capitalism" (radical or otherwise) at ANY time in recent history, unless you consider recent history the Industrial Revolution or the early 1900s. I think the more appropriate term to describe Thatcher's policies would be "Thatcherism", which did include some free market principles...


Interesting that you should refer back to the 19th Century as Thatcher herself was a great supporter of what she referred to as "Victorian values".
Friedman was also of the belief that "the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-3

I agree that Thatcher founded what is known as "Thatcherism" but think that the ideological base for this was provided by Hayek, Friedman and a strong belief in exactly the kind of free market capitalism you find so attractive.

Milton Friedman said about her in 1979...
"...I salute Margaret Thatcher and her government for their courage and wisdom in moving firmly and promptly to cut Britain’s bureaucratic straitjacket. Britain has enormous latent strength—in human capacities, industrial traditions, financial institutions, social stability. If these can be released from bondage, if incentive can be restored, Britain could once again become a vibrant, dynamic, increasingly productive economy."
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defi ... cle/144256

Thatcher on Friedman in 2006...
"Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten. He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science.
I shall greatly miss my old friend's lucid wisdom and mordant humour."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ghter.html

Hayek on Thatcher in 1982...
"It is Mrs Thatcher’s great merit that she has broken the Keynesian immorality of ‘in the long run we are all dead’ and to have concentrated on the long run future of the country irrespective of possible effects on the electors…Mrs Thatcher’s courage makes her put the long run future of the country first.”
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/lady_t ... n_friedman

BTW the above link makes the interesting suggestion that Hayek's major objection to Thatcher's policy was that it was too much influenced by Friedman's monetarist policies, claiming further that Friedman's ideological influence was stronger than Hayek's, although Thatcher and Joseph got along with Hayek better on a personal level.

Finally, Thatcher on Hayek...
“[T}he most powerful critique of socialist planning and the socialist state which I read at this time [the late 1940s], and to which I have returned so often since [is] F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/lady_t ... n_friedman

Regarding the direct connection between Thatcherism and the Free Market, I think this article in the "Economist" sum things up rather well...

"It was then [in 1975] that Mrs Thatcher became a Thatcherite. She was led there by Joseph, who argued that only a free-market approach would save the country. These policies, extremely daring for 1975, became her agenda for the next 15 years.
Mrs Thatcher, a great patriot, had been hurt and bewildered by Britain’s precipitate decline since 1945. Not only had Britain lost an empire; it was, by the mid-1970s, no longer even the leading European power. Joseph’s critique seemed a way to halt, and even reverse, that decline. What Britain now needed was an urgent return to the values of enterprise and self-help."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/ ... thatcher-0

Obviously, it is a value judgement in how far her ideological aims were achieved. As I said before, it was enough to make me want to leave the country.

As to Thatcher's position on the NHS and socialized medicine, I tend to agree with this article which begins thus...

"What was Thatcher’s legacy for the NHS?
By Tom Goodfellow - 10th April 2013 11:37 am

“The NHS is safe in our hands. The elderly are safe in our hands. The sick are safe in our hands. The surgeons are safe in our hands. The nurses are safe in our hands. The doctors are safe in our hands. The dentists are safe in our hands.” - Margaret Thatcher.

As the wall to wall Thatcher coverage continues I have noticed that, so far, there has been little or no mention of her NHS reforms. I think there is a fairly obvious reason for this; simply that she started a process which gathered speed under Tony Blair, and which has now culminated in the Health & Social Care Act which is the biggest and most complex reform of the NHS in its history, and I suspect probably its biggest disaster."

And ends thus...

"So Mrs Thatcher rest in peace. But the NHS “safe in your hands” – I think not!"
http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/tom-g ... or-the-nhs

I apologize to Downer Mydnite for all the links...


That's all nice and fine. And we know there were free market principles embedded in "Thatcherism." BUT...I don't see how that shows that the UK, at least in recent times, has been rooted in "free market capitalism"?! :?

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Well, I think Thatcherism changed the parameters of socio-economic debate in the UK, so that the only acceptable solutions to economic questions from all political parties in the UK became a range of free market capitalist ideas, whilst negating the validity of other options, e.g social market, Keynesian. That's not to say that these are always better solutions in all cases, but they are, in my view, worthy of consideration.
Thus, those are my reasons for claiming that the UK economy is currently rooted in free market capitalism.
Why don't you tell me what elements of current and past British economic thought/policy as espoused by UK politicians are specifically not based on the ideas of free market capitalism (with the exception of the NHS)?
Then I could either agree or disagree.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], downer mydnyte, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group