Sanders to raise taxes, destroy healthcare

[pErvinalia]

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

You claimed that countries with socialised medicine have gone bankrupt. So which ones?

"Going", and all of them.

Prove it. Most of those countries have a lower debt to gdp ratio than the US.

It's an inexorable fact of mathematics and economics.

Given your understanding of both of those is woeful, you'll excuse us from accepting this shit. I've shown you the evidence and explained the economics of it before that show why looking after the less well off in a society is actually good for the overall economy.

Oh my god, I can't believe how far you have fallen from grace. You claimed that non-US healthcare is more expensive.

To the economy, not to any particular individual thief.

You then claimed it is cheaper because (after again claiming it wasn't)

No, not "cheaper", "inferior."

You really are utterly confused. Not only did you suggest that it was both cheaper and inferior, we've provided endless data over the years to prove to you that it's cheaper to the overall economy than the US system. The US government spends more per patient than in the UHC countries. This is a FACT, seth. You don't get to choose your own facts, champ.

That's why they aren't mutually exclusive. You can have cheaper healthcare and less quality healthcare.

Yes, you can, but that's not what I said.

So what in the fuck are you allegedly saying, then!??

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

A Lada is cheaper than a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't make them equal in any way at all.

Who said they are equal you dishonest fuck?!! All I said was that it's cheaper!

Yes, I know that's what you said, you dishonest fuck.

How was I dishonest?!? And you didn't answer the question: Who said they are equal? ONCE AGAIN, all I said was that it's cheaper. Can you somehow manage to stick to the actual content of the debate??!

So now you are yet again agreeing that it is cheaper outside the US than inside the US? Or are you wibbling something else now?!

It's cheaper to the patient because it's inferior. It's more expensive to the taxpayers for the government to run it than for private industry to do so because of government inefficiency and bureaucratic overhead.

That's factually incorrect. The US spends more on healthcare by many multiples than UHC countries. The reason is that government care is a giant buyers pool, so get's huge discounts for bulk purchases, and government care doesn't cost the taxpayers or users the profit margin.

Austerity leads to less demand and higher unemployement (which leads to less demand, rinse repeat). That's why the UK is fucked. They have low demand and high unemployment. You can't run an economy like that.

This presumes that the government is the source of wealth, which is not the case.

All government spending is economic activity.

Indeed, negative economic activity.

That's nonsensical. It's economic activity and it adds to the wealth of the economy. You really need to go do an Economics 101 course.

Government creates nothing, it only consumes wealth

Zero Sum Game fallacy, YET AGAIN from you.

The problem with your idiotic understanding is that you think that the general public and the economy benefit more from government spending than from consumer spending.

Government spending IS consumer spending.

Austerity leads to less government spending which means lower tax burdens

No it doesn't because austerity doesn't lower taxes, they have already been lowered over 30+ years leading to structural deficits. Austerity only cuts spending and employment. Both of which are a hit to an economy.

Um, austerity cuts TAX COLLECTION,

It doesn't, as I've just explained. Look at Greece. Austerity actually required raising of taxes. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

Nup. I want rational economic policy, not neoliberal nepotism and corruption.

Capitalism is rational economic policy. The only rational economic policy in fact. Moreover you have provided zero evidence that "neoliberal nepotism and corruption" is in fact the case anywhere.

You know very well that government policy is owned by big money and big industries (big coal, big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, military industrial complex etc).

No I don't and neither do you. Much less have you ever provided a single shred of evidence showing this to be true.

Pure trollery. I know you live an insular existence, but you are well aware of the corporate hijacking of government. The three forums have posted probably thousands of articles showing this. You've commented on all those threads. Usually you just end up pushing the neoliberal line that it's better that the "wealth creators" get handouts and regulatory control than the "indolent classes". So stop with the lying, for the love of god.

It could be argued that free market capitalism is rational (I'd argue otherwise, but at least proponents can assemble an argument in favour), but it's simply not possible to argue that nepotism and corruption is rational economic policy.

All you have to do now is prove that "nepotism" and "corruption" control the economy. Good luck with that.

We've shown you the evidence before. You claim that it's all good, as it is the "wealth creators" that are benefiting. And any evidence that we present that you disagree with you dismiss with the infantile "Marxist conspiracy theory" idiocy. Evidence that doesn't fit your bias has zero effect on you.

[JimC]

One of these days, perhaps Seth will realise that the civilised world is perfectly happy with the various forms of "socialised medicine" that have been put in place, usually with broad, cross-party support over the years. It works for us, and the opinions of a few libertarian crazies from the US are utterly unimportant.

[pErvinalia]

Australia has had socialised medicine for something like 40 years. We are one of the richest countries in the world, best places to live, one of only a few countries with a AAA rating from all three agencies (sorry, meant Marxist agencies... silly me), a significantly lower debt to GDP ratio than the US, lower infant mortality, and much longer life-span.

Yes, Seth, socialised medicine has destroyed our country...

[Seth]

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

You claimed that countries with socialised medicine have gone bankrupt. So which ones?

"Going", and all of them.

Prove it. Most of those countries have a lower debt to gdp ratio than the US.

Let X be the total of wealth created by the productive class.
Let Y be the total of wealth consumed by the dependent class.

Where Y > X, the economy fails.

Let A be the number of members of the productive class.
Let B be the number of members of the dependent class.

Where B > A, X < Y, and the economy fails.

Now shut the fuck up.

It's an inexorable fact of mathematics and economics.

Given your understanding of both of those is woeful, you'll excuse us from accepting this shit. I've shown you the evidence and explained the economics of it before that show why looking after the less well off in a society is actually good for the overall economy.

I'm sorry but you haven't shown any evidence of the kind. When A is compelled to support B, A has less of A's generated wealth to spend as A sees fit. Economically that is bad for A. Economically it is good for B. But economics is not the only metric involved here, which is something you consistently ignore. The fact that B might be better off by stealing A's wealth doesn't mean that society is better off for allowing, or in the case of socialism conspiring to assist B in stealing A's wealth. When done on a regular basis, such government-sponsored theft, being nothing more than placing A into involuntary servitude to B, fails to reward A for being productive enough that A has "excess wealth" that B can appropriate at the muzzle of a machine gun, A eventually gives up being extra productive and takes up the position and labor input of B, which is as a member of the dependent class who does not produce anything but rather steals from everyone else. Now both A and B are unemployed, indigent, welfare-supported members of the dependent class and the burden of supporting both A and B falls on C. C, who now has to work THREE TIMES as much to generate enough wealth so that C has enough wealth remaining after the theft by A and B to feed his own family, pay his own rent, etc., even more quickly decides that it's a fruitless waste of his labor to work any harder than the absolute minimum amount of labor he must input in order to qualify for welfare benefits (which is usually zero), and now A, B, and C are unemployed and indigent and must be supported by D. Repeat 6 billion times and you end up with nobody working and everybody sitting around demanding welfare benefits but there is no one producing anything, much less the wealth necessary to support all six billion dependent-class indigents.

People work, you see, so that they personally, and their families will have wealth with which to meet their needs and desires. When socialism removes the inducement to work extra hard to create extra wealth for the benefit of the individual worker and his family, the individual worker shifts to minimum-work mode because there is absolutely no point in working any harder because any wealth beyond that provided by the minimum-labor input is taken by the government and redistributed to other people.

And that is how Y becomes greater than X and the economy fails.

I have repeated this simply math problem many times and you have studiously ignored it each and every time and never once attempted to rebut it. So fuck off.

You really are utterly confused. Not only did you suggest that it was both cheaper and inferior, we've provided endless data over the years to prove to you that it's cheaper to the overall economy than the US system. The US government spends more per patient than in the UHC countries. This is a FACT, seth. You don't get to choose your own facts, champ.

And because we spend more per patient our patients get superior, not inferior health care. Moreover, in a private healthcare system like ours (used to be) consumers had choices about from whom they obtained their health care, which means that providers have to bow to free-market forces and try to provide better care at a lower cost than their competitors. The ultimate arbiter of who provides the best health care at the lowest price is, of course, the consumers.

In socialized medicine you get whatever quality and quantity of health care the government decides you are to get, no more, no less and no recourse or redress. There is no market force to induce the provider (the government) to be more efficient and provide a superior product because there is no competition to cause that to happen. In fact the motivation of government is to spend LESS on health care for the individual, thus providing inferior care, in order to save something for someone else whom the government has promised to treat. As a result ALL government-run healthcare systems (and indeed every single other government-run anything) provides inferior products at higher costs and are rife with corruption and outright theft due to the difficulty of policing government bureaucrats and the lack of a profit motive to stimulate anyone to do so. So, the care costs more and more from the taxpayers and the quality gets worse and worse because it must do so as a function of economics and human behavior.

The only thing, and I do mean only thing that socialized medicine provides is egalitarian death and misery for the proletarian masses. Everybody gets the same shitty, incompetent, and often deadly medical care as everyone else. Except, of course, for the Marxist elite, who don't participate in the socialized medicine system because they have embezzled and stolen enough money from the system to be able to afford to fly to the United States, where they can get the finest healthcare on the face of the earth.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

A Lada is cheaper than a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't make them equal in any way at all.

Who said they are equal you dishonest fuck?!! All I said was that it's cheaper!

Yes, I know that's what you said, you dishonest fuck.

How was I dishonest?!? And you didn't answer the question: Who said they are equal? ONCE AGAIN, all I said was that it's cheaper. Can you somehow manage to stick to the actual content of the debate??!

You, you dishonest fuck, are trying to move the goalposts to make "cheapness" the only metric involved, which is obviously not the case. People don't want "cheap" healthcare, they want competent, quality healthcare that actually deals with the medical issues and fixes them. in critical, life-threatening situations they do not give a flying fuck what it's going to cost them because if they don't get absolutely the best, most advanced care that exists, THEY WILL BE DEAD.

The cost of the healthcare they need is only a factor if the healthcare they get keeps them alive, you dunce.

If they need a $3000 MRI to diagnose the condition so it can be treated but they cannot get one because the socialized medicine system (Canada's) has, for reasons of keeping medical care costs low, so few MRI machines that by the time the individual can get the test to diagnose the condition, much less treat the condition, the fucking patient has died waiting for the test. And yes, this happens. And many things like it happen, like health care rationing and denial for "expensive" conditions, particularly in the elderly, that are "too expensive" to justify providing them to someone "who only has a few good years left to live." So much for universal free health care on demand. But that's always been a complete Marxist fiction anyway.

"Yeah man, my National Health Service care was really quick and efficient. I was into and out of the ER inside of ten minutes. The only problem is the knife the thug stuck into my pancreas is still there, but they did give me a sticking plaster and an aspirin, so I got my "free" healthcare!"

That's factually incorrect. The US spends more on healthcare by many multiples than UHC countries.

And it provides many-multiples better care than UHC countries.

The reason is that government care is a giant buyers pool, so get's huge discounts for bulk purchases, and government care doesn't cost the taxpayers or users the profit margin.

Um, producers of medical goods either make a profit or they go out of business, you dunce, so you're completely wrong, again. Any savings that might be realized by bulk buying is massively offset by corruption and diversion of funds by government bureaucrats and the massive increase in unnecessary medical care stimulated by the consumer's assumption that because it's "free" they can use as much of it as possible, which means the ERs are stuffed to the gills with snotty noses and ear infections and the staff are overwhelmed and unable to provide quality care to anyone because they are mandated to provide SOME kind of care to EVERYONE.

So no, you're still wrong, which is why the UK's NHS is imploding as we speak.

The problem with your idiotic understanding is that you think that the general public and the economy benefit more from government spending than from consumer spending.

Government spending IS consumer spending.

No, it's government spending from which consumers may, but mostly do not get any direct personal benefits and over which they have absolutely no control.

Um, austerity cuts TAX COLLECTION,

It doesn't, as I've just explained. Look at Greece. Austerity actually required raising of taxes. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

No, Greece's debtors required increases in taxes and slashes in public sector salaries and pensions, which were the largest part of Greece's public debt, so that they could get some of the loans they made back. And when the public workers unions found out that their pensions were going to be cut and their jobs eliminated they rioted in the streets. "Austerity" means "to cut government spending," not "increase taxes to support existing government spending."

austerity = a ​difficult ​economic ​situation ​caused by a ​government ​reducing the ​amount of ​money it ​spends.

Pure trollery. I know you live an insular existence, but you are well aware of the corporate hijacking of government.

I've seen plenty of Marxist doubletalk, propaganda and unsupported opinions, but no actual facts demonstrating any such thing. The rule of law still obtains in the US.

[Seth]

Australia has had socialised medicine for something like 40 years. We are one of the richest countries in the world, best places to live, one of only a few countries with a AAA rating from all three agencies (sorry, meant Marxist agencies... silly me), a significantly lower debt to GDP ratio than the US, lower infant mortality, and much longer life-span.

Yes, Seth, socialised medicine has destroyed our country...

It will, when the OPM runs out.

[pErvinalia]

Pure unadulterated crap. You have no argument. The facts show you to be utterly wrong.

And for the 50th time, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. You don't even understand the basics of economics

[Seth]

One of these days, perhaps Seth will realise that the civilised world is perfectly happy with the various forms of "socialised medicine" that have been put in place, usually with broad, cross-party support over the years. It works for us, and the opinions of a few libertarian crazies from the US are utterly unimportant.

Thieves are always satisfied with their loot. Victims, however, are not generally satisfied to be continually robbed of their wealth, which they have worked hard for.

And it "works for you" only because you steal it from others at the muzzle of a machine gun, with which you are willing to kill anyone who doesn't stand and deliver what you think you're entitled to.

You're just making the specious "majority rule" argument again. Just because the majority likes gassing and cooking Jews doesn't mean it's morally defensible.

Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews, which is to say it's morally indefensible. Which is also true of socialism itself.

[Seth]

Pure unadulterated crap. You have no argument. The facts show you to be utterly wrong.

And for the 50th time, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. You don't even understand the basics of economics

I'm sure you like to think so, but the fact that you can't rationally refute any of my arguments, say by using math like I did, and instead must resort to ad homenim arguments demonstrates that you don't have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.

The reason you think OPM is a zero-sum game fallacy is because you premise your conclusion on the false notion that there is no such thing as "other people's money" in the first place and that there is both moral and economic equivalence in the government spending someones money versus them spending their money. You don't see government taking someone's money by force and spending it on someone else as a consumption of "other people's money" because you don't give a fuck whether the person who earned the money gets to spend it, in fact you favor simply TAKING it from him to feed YOUR personal needs and desires, and then you claim that because the government spent the money on YOU (after skimming 30 percent off the top to pay it's bureaucrats) rather than the owner of the money spending it on himself, that this makes the spending morally and economically equivalent.

It doesn't. It matters who earns the money and who therefore is morally, legally, ethically and rationally entitled to spend it, and buddy, if you didn't earn it, that ain't you and it it is NEVER "the government," which is just a bunch of cupidinous "yous" who conspire together to steal what doesn't belong to you.

[pErvinalia]

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

You claimed that countries with socialised medicine have gone bankrupt. So which ones?

"Going", and all of them.

Prove it. Most of those countries have a lower debt to gdp ratio than the US.

Let X be the total of wealth created by the productive class.
Let Y be the total of wealth consumed by the dependent class.

Where Y > X, the economy fails.

Let A be the number of members of the productive class.
Let B be the number of members of the dependent class.

Where B > A, X < Y, and the economy fails.

Now shut the fuck up.

No.

Wealth doesn't get "consumed" unless you have negative gdp (i.e. recession). This is just more of your failure to understand the zero sum game fallacy. The simple fact is that bankruptcy is an inability to pay debts back. The best measure for the difficulty a country faces to pay back debts is debt:gdp ratio (and your gdp growth rate). The US is in terrible debt trouble compared to most of the advanced social democracies. If any country is in danger of going bankrupt it is the US (and the PIGS).

It's an inexorable fact of mathematics and economics.

Given your understanding of both of those is woeful, you'll excuse us from accepting this shit. I've shown you the evidence and explained the economics of it before that show why looking after the less well off in a society is actually good for the overall economy.

I'm sorry but you haven't shown any evidence of the kind.

Bullshit. I've repeatedly shown IMF and OECD reports that show that money spent by the poor re-enters the economy at a higher proportion than money spent by the rich. That is, it leads to greater economic activity. And I've shown you analysis before pointing out that the best modern economic growth rates have occurred post-WWII in the Keynesian era. Those growth rates fell when neoliberalism was implemented in the 80's and have remained low since.

So stop fucking lying!

You really are utterly confused. Not only did you suggest that it was both cheaper and inferior, we've provided endless data over the years to prove to you that it's cheaper to the overall economy than the US system. The US government spends more per patient than in the UHC countries. This is a FACT, seth. You don't get to choose your own facts, champ.

And because we spend more per patient...

So now you are agreeing with me again that healthcare is cheaper to the economy outside the US? Man, can you make up your mind?!!

Moreover, in a private healthcare system like ours (used to be) consumers had choices about from whom they obtained their health care, which means that providers have to bow to free-market forces and try to provide better care at a lower cost than their competitors. The ultimate arbiter of who provides the best health care at the lowest price is, of course, the consumers.

This has nothing to do with socialised medicine. We have a dual system here. They're not mutually exclusive.

In socialized medicine you get whatever quality and quantity of health care the government decides you are to get, no more, no less and no recourse or redress.

Well we have lower infant mortality and higher average lifespans. So the amount we get is clearly better than what you get for 3 times the price.

The only thing, and I do mean only thing that socialized medicine provides is egalitarian death and misery for the proletarian masses.

Wrong. It provides a lower infant mortality and higher average life span here. Try again.

Who said they are equal you dishonest fuck?!! All I said was that it's cheaper!

Yes, I know that's what you said, you dishonest fuck.

How was I dishonest?!? And you didn't answer the question: Who said they are equal? ONCE AGAIN, all I said was that it's cheaper. Can you somehow manage to stick to the actual content of the debate??!

You, you dishonest fuck, are trying to move the goalposts to make "cheapness" the only metric involved,

What in the fuck are you talking about?!? I STARTED THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BEING CHEAPER. There was never any other parameter mentioned. You came out and outright stated that it wasn't cheaper. Now half the time you are agreeing with me and half the time you aren't. Your "argument" is a fucking dog's breakfast!

which is obviously not the case. People don't want "cheap" healthcare, they want competent, quality healthcare that actually deals with the medical issues and fixes them. in critical, life-threatening situations they do not give a flying fuck what it's going to cost them because if they don't get absolutely the best, most advanced care that exists, THEY WILL BE DEAD.

Which we clearly get here, given we live longer that you lot.

The cost of the healthcare they need is only a factor if the healthcare they get keeps them alive, you dunce.

That's factually incorrect. The US spends more on healthcare by many multiples than UHC countries.

And it provides many-multiples better care than UHC countries.

Oh, you're agreeing with me again now about cost? That's good.

you dunce

The problem with your idiotic understanding is that you think that the general public and the economy benefit more from government spending than from consumer spending.

Government spending IS consumer spending.

No, it's government spending from which consumers may, but mostly do not get any direct personal benefits and over which they have absolutely no control.

When government spends money they purchase services, products and labour.

Um, austerity cuts TAX COLLECTION,

It doesn't, as I've just explained. Look at Greece. Austerity actually required raising of taxes. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

No, Greece's debtors required increases in taxes and slashes in public sector salaries and pensions, which were the largest part of Greece's public debt, so that they could get some of the loans they made back. And when the public workers unions found out that their pensions were going to be cut and their jobs eliminated they rioted in the streets. "Austerity" means "to cut government spending," not "increase taxes to support existing government spending."

So when you said it involves cutting taxes, you were lying, again? I thought so.

austerity = a ​difficult ​economic ​situation ​caused by a ​government ​reducing the ​amount of ​money it ​spends.

Nothing about cutting taxes in there like you claimed. When will you stop making up shit just to support your feeble "arguments"?

[pErvinalia]

Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews

Wow. That's so fucking retarded it's going into my signature.

[pErvinalia]

Pure unadulterated crap. You have no argument. The facts show you to be utterly wrong.

And for the 50th time, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. You don't even understand the basics of economics

I'm sure you like to think so, but the fact that you can't rationally refute any of my arguments, say by using math like I did, and instead must resort to ad homenim arguments demonstrates that you don't have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.

The reason you think OPM is a zero-sum game fallacy is because you premise your conclusion on the false notion that there is no such thing as "other people's money" in the first place

It doesn't matter who owns the money. All that matters is that the money is available to enter the economy as free capital. As explained to you a million times, growth rates were higher during Keynesianism where the rich were taxed up to 80% of their income. Facts, Seth. It sucks to be you.

[Seth]

Wealth doesn't get "consumed" unless you have negative gdp (i.e. recession).

Sure it does, as far as the person to whom the wealth belongs is concerned. That's the nuance you are unable to understand. When the thief steals your diamond necklace the diamond necklace doesn't cease to exist, but it ceases to exist as "wealth" in the possession of the legitimate owner and it becomes "wealth" in the hands of the thief. Contrary to your specious implications, the two types of "wealth" are not morally or economically equivalent, although to a Marxist thief like you you'd like them to be.

This is just more of your failure to understand the zero sum game fallacy. The simple fact is that bankruptcy is an inability to pay debts back. The best measure for the difficulty a country faces to pay back debts is debt:gdp ratio (and your gdp growth rate). The US is in terrible debt trouble compared to most of the advanced social democracies. If any country is in danger of going bankrupt it is the US (and the PIGS).

Not really, because unlike all of the socialist countries the US has the ability to increase wealth and economic output by using capitalism and free markets to generate sufficient wealth to pay off our debts, whereas socialist countries (like Greece) are headed nowhere but into economic ruin.

Bullshit. I've repeatedly shown IMF and OECD reports that show that money spent by the poor re-enters the economy at a higher proportion than money spent by the rich.

First, your Marxist propaganda is flatly rejected. Second, the only way the poor get money to put into the economy is by stealing it from someone else, specifically "the rich." I know you don't give a moral fuck where the poor get their money or that it's stolen from someone else when you make your idiotic and simplistic (and entirely false) claims, but the people to whom that wealth belonged before it was stolen by the jackbooted thugs of government DO give a fuck, and so do I.

That is, it leads to greater economic activity. And I've shown you analysis before pointing out that the best modern economic growth rates have occurred post-WWII in the Keynesian era. Those growth rates fell when neoliberalism was implemented in the 80's and have remained low since.

If that calculus were true, then the rational thing to do would be to simply seize all of the wealth of "the rich," redistribute it to "the poor" and bingo! the economy would be perfected, everybody would be wealthy, nobody would be poor and unicorns would fart rainbows everywhere.

But what happens when you seize the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor is that the companies that the rich did, or might in the future start with that capital vanish and are never started because there is no venture capital available with which to do so, it being in the hands of the proletarian dependent class who will spend it on crack and Twinkies (which makes Twinkie stock rise, but nothing else).

You see, it's not just a moral issue of WHO gets to spend the wealth (which is important even to the economic calculus), it's ON WHAT that wealth gets spent. Nobody needs more Twinkies, but without their capital the recently-robbed "rich" will be unable to invest in anything that might actually grow the economy, so eventually we'll end up with Idiocracy and Twinkies.

"Economic growth" is not the be-all and end-all of a society, much less an economy. Criminals can grow their economy by stealing the wealth they need, but that's not an appropriate social model, or an economic one either because once the OPM has been stolen, the criminals have nobody left to rob and their "wealth" stagnates and becomes unavailable to the economy.

So stop fucking lying!

Stop being a microcephalic dimwit and mathematical dunce.

You really are utterly confused. Not only did you suggest that it was both cheaper and inferior, we've provided endless data over the years to prove to you that it's cheaper to the overall economy than the US system. The US government spends more per patient than in the UHC countries. This is a FACT, seth. You don't get to choose your own facts, champ.

And because we spend more per patient...

So now you are agreeing with me again that healthcare is cheaper to the economy outside the US? Man, can you make up your mind?!!

Nope. It's only cheaper to the patient who doesn't have to pay for it. Otherwise it's much more expensive in the long run due to waste, fraud, corruption and bureaucratic overhead. It only SEEMS cheaper because it's not coming directly out of your pocket. But its coming out of SOMEONE'S pocket.

The only thing, and I do mean only thing that socialized medicine provides is egalitarian death and misery for the proletarian masses.

Wrong. It provides a lower infant mortality and higher average life span here. Try again.

It might, at the moment, but when the OPM runs out life spans will shrink drastically and babies will be eaten by their parents.

What in the fuck are you talking about?!? I STARTED THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BEING CHEAPER. There was never any other parameter mentioned.

That's what makes you a dishonest fuck. It's not just about "cheaper," which is what I've been telling you. You want to limit the discussion to "cheaper" so you can claim victory, but "cheaper" is not the only, much less the most important metric when it comes to health care, and you know it, which makes your argument a dishonest one.

You came out and outright stated that it wasn't cheaper.

Because it's not, it just seems that way to the ignorant.

Now half the time you are agreeing with me and half the time you aren't. Your "argument" is a fucking dog's breakfast!

No, I'm disagreeing with you entirely, it's just that you aren't smart enough to understand it.

which is obviously not the case. People don't want "cheap" healthcare, they want competent, quality healthcare that actually deals with the medical issues and fixes them. in critical, life-threatening situations they do not give a flying fuck what it's going to cost them because if they don't get absolutely the best, most advanced care that exists, THEY WILL BE DEAD.

Which we clearly get here, given we live longer that you lot.

Except for the ones who don't...because they couldn't get an MRI.

No, it's government spending from which consumers may, but mostly do not get any direct personal benefits and over which they have absolutely no control.

When government spends money they purchase services, products and labour.

Which are usually of less direct benefit to the person from whom the money was stolen in the first place so government could spend it than it would have been if the government had not stolen it, skimmed 30+ percent off the top, and then spent it on something the taxpayer who paid for it doesn't need, doesn't want, can't use and can't decline to fund.

So when you said it involves cutting taxes, you were lying, again? I thought so.

When a government cuts spending it doesn't need to collect as much tax because it's not spending as much, therefore the taxes can be cut because there is no longer a need for those revenues, and so the money can be left in the wallets of the taxpayers...you idiot.

[Seth]

Pure unadulterated crap. You have no argument. The facts show you to be utterly wrong.

And for the 50th time, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. You don't even understand the basics of economics

I'm sure you like to think so, but the fact that you can't rationally refute any of my arguments, say by using math like I did, and instead must resort to ad homenim arguments demonstrates that you don't have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.

The reason you think OPM is a zero-sum game fallacy is because you premise your conclusion on the false notion that there is no such thing as "other people's money" in the first place

It doesn't matter who owns the money. All that matters is that the money is available to enter the economy as free capital. As explained to you a million times, growth rates were higher during Keynesianism where the rich where taxed up to 80% of their income. Facts, Seth. It sucks to be you.

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

You have just proven beyond any doubt that you are a Marxist. Only Marxists don't care who owns the wealth and only Marxists have no compunctions about taking wealth from anyone they deem to have "too much" of it, according to their Marxist notions of Marxist egalitarianism.

Everybody else does care, particularly those who work to create the wealth and have no interest in sharing it with Marxists.

And the only reason that growth rates were "higher" during Keynesian periods is because they did not last long enough to exhaust the OPM. Every period of high taxation such as what you suggest, which does indeed create temporary, artificial inflation of the economy was followed by exactly the opposite; reduced taxation and a roaring economy. The "Roaring Twenties" is the classic example of exactly what happens when Keynesian economics begin their downwards slide and capitalism and limited government follow. When Harding and Coolidge cut taxes after Woodrow Wilson, the father of modern Progressivism, quit, the economy, which had been in recession due to WWI, exploded.

The prime example of Keynesian economics and it's abject failure is the Soviet Union. Game, set, match to me. You lose.

[pErvinalia]

Wealth doesn't get "consumed" unless you have negative gdp (i.e. recession).

Sure it does, as far as the person to whom the wealth belongs is concerned. That's the nuance you are unable to understand.

What you seem to have forgotten is that we are talking about total wealth in the economy. You claim that wealth is disappearing and that's going to cause bankruptcy. That's simply false, as wealth doesn't disappear from the economy unless you have a negative gdp growth rate. This is the basics of the basics, Seth. I cant believe you can't even understand this simple shit.

This is just more of your failure to understand the zero sum game fallacy. The simple fact is that bankruptcy is an inability to pay debts back. The best measure for the difficulty a country faces to pay back debts is debt:gdp ratio (and your gdp growth rate). The US is in terrible debt trouble compared to most of the advanced social democracies. If any country is in danger of going bankrupt it is the US (and the PIGS).

Not really, because unlike all of the socialist countries the US has the ability to increase wealth and economic output by using capitalism and free markets to generate sufficient wealth to pay off our debts, whereas socialist countries (like Greece) are headed nowhere but into economic ruin.

You just don't get it. Your gdp is the indication of how well you can service debt. But if your debt to gdp ratio is higher than another country, you don't have the same capacity to service that debt. Again, this is basic stuff.

Bullshit. I've repeatedly shown IMF and OECD reports that show that money spent by the poor re-enters the economy at a higher proportion than money spent by the rich.

First, your Marxist propaganda is flatly rejected. Second, the only way the poor get money to put into the economy is by stealing it from someone else, specifically "the rich." I know you don't give a moral fuck where the poor get their money or that it's stolen from someone else when you make your idiotic and simplistic (and entirely false) claims, but the people to whom that wealth belonged before it was stolen by the jackbooted thugs of government DO give a fuck, and so do I.

Introducing morals into this is a moving the goal post fallacy. All I'm concerned with is refuting your failed economic understanding. I'm not making any comment on your moral system (in this case). And the facts are, that the poor spend more of their money in the economy than the rich. Facts, Seth. Inconvenient for you, I know.

That is, it leads to greater economic activity. And I've shown you analysis before pointing out that the best modern economic growth rates have occurred post-WWII in the Keynesian era. Those growth rates fell when neoliberalism was implemented in the 80's and have remained low since.

If that calculus were true,

What do you mean "if"?!? Are you not capable to do a simple search? It's easy to verify.

then the rational thing to do would be to simply seize all of the wealth of "the rich," redistribute it to "the poor" and bingo! the economy would be perfected, everybody would be wealthy, nobody would be poor and unicorns would fart rainbows everywhere.

Argument ad absurdum isn't a proper argument. No one is suggesting to do that. Again, the simple fact is that when taxes on the rich and corps were higher, we had higher economic growth rates.

But what happens when you seize the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor is that the companies that the rich did, or might in the future start with that capital vanish

Why on earth would they vanish?!? More of the capital will be fluid and available in the economy to be utilised in new ventures. This is basic stuff.

and are never started because there is no venture capital available with which to do so, it being in the hands of the proletarian dependent class who will spend it on crack and Twinkies (which makes Twinkie stock rise, but nothing else).

You really don't understand how economies work, do you? Virtually ALL money owned by the poor enters the economy. It doesn't disappear from the economy. It is there available to be utilised straight away. This is basic stuff.

You see, it's not just a moral issue of WHO gets to spend the wealth (which is important even to the economic calculus), it's ON WHAT that wealth gets spent. Nobody needs more Twinkies, but without their capital the recently-robbed "rich" will be unable to invest in anything that might actually grow the economy, so eventually we'll end up with Idiocracy and Twinkies.

"Economic growth" is not the be-all and end-all of a society, much less an economy. Criminals can grow their economy by stealing the wealth they need, but that's not an appropriate social model, or an economic one either because once the OPM has been stolen, the criminals have nobody left to rob and their "wealth" stagnates and becomes unavailable to the economy.

Goal post shift. We aren't discussing the morality of it (we've discussed that plenty of times before).

Stop being a microcephalic dimwit and mathematical dunce.

You really are utterly confused. Not only did you suggest that it was both cheaper and inferior, we've provided endless data over the years to prove to you that it's cheaper to the overall economy than the US system. The US government spends more per patient than in the UHC countries. This is a FACT, seth. You don't get to choose your own facts, champ.

And because we spend more per patient...

So now you are agreeing with me again that healthcare is cheaper to the economy outside the US? Man, can you make up your mind?!!

Nope.

Oh FFS!:fp:

The only thing, and I do mean only thing that socialized medicine provides is egalitarian death and misery for the proletarian masses.

Wrong. It provides a lower infant mortality and higher average life span here. Try again.

It might, at the moment, but when the OPM runs out life spans will shrink drastically and babies will be eaten by their parents.

It's been doing it since it's existence. And, AGAIN, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. When are you going to get this simple point??

What in the fuck are you talking about?!? I STARTED THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BEING CHEAPER. There was never any other parameter mentioned.

That's what makes you a dishonest fuck.

How is stating an unequivocal fact being "a dishonest fuck"? I entered the point into the conversation, so I get to deal with that parameter exactly as I stated.

It's not just about "cheaper," which is what I've been telling you. You want to limit the discussion to "cheaper" so you can claim victory, but "cheaper" is not the only, much less the most important metric when it comes to health care, and you know it, which makes your argument a dishonest one.

No, I just want to prove that you habitually lie.

which is obviously not the case. People don't want "cheap" healthcare, they want competent, quality healthcare that actually deals with the medical issues and fixes them. in critical, life-threatening situations they do not give a flying fuck what it's going to cost them because if they don't get absolutely the best, most advanced care that exists, THEY WILL BE DEAD.

Which we clearly get here, given we live longer that you lot.

Except for the ones who don't...because they couldn't get an MRI.

But clearly enough do, given we live longer than you.

No, it's government spending from which consumers may, but mostly do not get any direct personal benefits and over which they have absolutely no control.

When government spends money they purchase services, products and labour.

Which are usually of less direct benefit to the person from whom the money was stolen in the first place so government could spend it than it would have been if the government had not stolen it, skimmed 30+ percent off the top, and then spent it on something the taxpayer who paid for it doesn't need, doesn't want, can't use and can't decline to fund.

Which matters not one wit. As I keep trying to tell you, IT ALL ENTERS THE ECONOMY. You simply do not even understand the basics of how economies work.

So when you said it involves cutting taxes, you were lying, again? I thought so.

When a government cuts spending it doesn't need to collect as much tax because it's not spending as much,

Of course it does. We are talking about structural deficits where spending is greater than tax receipts. So if you cut spending, you can't cut taxes as well. That defeats the purpose of cutting spending.

you idiot.

You said that austerity involves cutting taxes. Your own link proves that wrong. Your "argument" is a dog's breakfast.

[pErvinalia]

Pure unadulterated crap. You have no argument. The facts show you to be utterly wrong.

And for the 50th time, "OPM" is a zero sum game fallacy. You don't even understand the basics of economics

I'm sure you like to think so, but the fact that you can't rationally refute any of my arguments, say by using math like I did, and instead must resort to ad homenim arguments demonstrates that you don't have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.

The reason you think OPM is a zero-sum game fallacy is because you premise your conclusion on the false notion that there is no such thing as "other people's money" in the first place

It doesn't matter who owns the money. All that matters is that the money is available to enter the economy as free capital. As explained to you a million times, growth rates were higher during Keynesianism where the rich where taxed up to 80% of their income. Facts, Seth. It sucks to be you.

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

You have just proven beyond any doubt that you are a Marxist. Only Marxists don't care who owns the wealth and only Marxists have no compunctions about taking wealth from anyone they deem to have "too much" of it, according to their Marxist notions of Marxist egalitarianism.

Goal post shift fallacy. The morality of Marxism isn't the debate here. The debate is what is factually better for economies and what is worse. I'm simply presenting facts to you. Now you can get all frothy about the morality of it, but that's not what we are debating here.

And further, me presenting facts, says nothing at all about my ideological beliefs. Stop being disingenuous.

And the only reason that growth rates were "higher" during Keynesian periods is because they did not last long enough to exhaust the OPM.

Zero sum game fallacy, AGAIN!

The prime example of Keynesian economics and it's abject failure is the Soviet Union. Game, set, match to me. You lose.

Keynes wasn't an authoritarian communist. Keynes was a capitalist. Soviet Union wasn't.