Is Obama A Part Of The Muslim Brotherhood

Discussion in 'News and Articles' started by FoxStop, Oct 5, 2013.

  1. Friend, that's my point. There is nothing capitalistic about over-regulating. You're right that something needs to be done about the US's current health system setup, but you're misguided if you think that the problem is insurers trying to make a profit. The problem is coming from government. When they regulate, 1 of 2 things will end up happening; 1) either the insurer will have to raise cost in order to stay afloat due to the extra finances it is forced to do by law, or 2) it will sink and the insurer goes out of business and the consumer is left with fewer and fewer options.

    I know as a Communist you are anti-Capitalism. As a Libertarian, I am pro-Capitalism. But capitalism is not doing its job when cronyism is taking place and regulation is being enforced upon the business AND the consumer (remember, this hurts the people too).

    The only way an insurer can make a profit is if they can make the consumer happy. However, with all of the regulations that have been springing up and the third party payer system taking place since the 70s, this ends up costing the consumer more. This was not at the choice of the insurer--this was at the enforcement of the government.

    Keep in mind, Germany doesn't have a third party payer system either. Also, their market is less regulated AND their capital isn't even as inflated.

    To make the comparison, we have to evaluate A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc...not just A and B.

    My concern is the health of the people. People deserve fast, affordable, and valuable health care. Socialized health care may have good intentions, but it has bad outcomes. Something is eventually going to be compromised--even is economies that seem more stable.

    I'm not trying to put on airs, but I've put in study time of Communist economics along with the Chicago School of Economics, Keynesian economics, and Austrian Economics. The most efficient way to bring value up and costs down surprisingly is Austrian Economics as every activity deflates the dollar which lowers costs. Not only that, but is reduces the risk of monopolies. The least effective way is Communist economics. Most people like me are opponents of Keynesian Economics which is a lot of Govt. involvement but a little private enterprise. The reason why most people don't even get close to Communist economics is because even Keynesian recognize the immorality of Communism.

    I'm not trying to be rude--I'm only trying to present the facts.

    Also...did we get off topic? :p
  2. A health insurance shall make profit. But not at the costs of the citizens or his insured. My health insurance company has gained e.g. a surplus of 4 million dollars (it is a very little health insurance). A large part of the profit is put back as reserves; a part to the shareholders given and a part as a bonus to the insured. And the insured get the bonus only when they have taken part in all programs of the health precautions.
    Everyone is content because this system was created by the state ( Bismark in the year 1878); and everyone to good comes.
    Health insurance scheme suffers from it in America, that profits are more important than people. What is with the oath of the Hypokrates? What is with solidarity? Germany, France, Great Britain and many other European countries have such a system. Even Canada has such a system! Why do you think so many Americans go to Canada, bill marriages come in there to be sick insured? And why is a Canadian who gets ill in the USA brought only from the country; if he has produced all invoices which can easily be 100,000 dollars?
    Obama has tried to set something against this imbalance between the power of the insurances and the faint of American citizens.
    I would have made it differently!
    I would have expropriated all insurances which do not work to the welfare of their insured; and built strict rules having to pay everyone in after what to the insurance: Employer and employee, respectively to 50% so as it is usual in my country.

    You wrote:

    To this I see that you are not informed about Germany well. The German Bundestag is embracing four parties at the moment. It is after American understanding:
    Republican (CDU = Christian democratic Party)
    Democrats (SPD = social-democratic party Germany)
    Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)
    CDU is short-term to the ruling party, this one but has not enough voices to rule. We do not have the elector system after which the winner gets all voices.CDU wants to form a coalition with SPD; although SPD, Greens and leftists have more voices. But SPD does not want to cooperate with the Left, the Communists. This has to do with the common history in the DDR.
    Our economy is regulated by the state but fewer than in the time of the first Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (after the 2nd World War).
    We do not have any high inflation because e.g. we do not have any minimum wage and the state subsidizes low pay.
    Unfortunately, the capitalism has let itself be seen in Germanyfrom his bad side since 2004. E.g. what the state is to blame with bad contracts for applies to the prices of electricity. But to explain this, my English would not suffice.
  3. #23 LysanderShapiro, Oct 16, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2013

    You're misunderstanding the use of the word "party." This doesn't mean political party, but rather an administrative agent carrier (as they are sometimes called). It's a payment of services other than the beneficiary. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but yes, I am familiar with the German medical care system. Like most places, they do not have administrative agent carrier the same way the US does--also known as "Third Party Payers." I'm not using the word party to mean a political party, nor am I talking about a celebratory get-together.

    This is how Third-Party Payers work:
    Let's say they this kind of insurance for groceries. Would the consumer care what things cost? Not at all. Why get ground beef when they could get steak? Why get non-organic when they could get organic? Why look for sales? The insurance companies would just pay for it. But by doing that, the grocery chain would need to increase its prices.

    But consider certain procedures like lasik eye surgery or plastic surgery...these procedures are NOT covered by insurance, but their prices have gone down by about 40%. Why? Because the consumer has to shop around for the best deal, and when the consumer is in charge, the businesses have to cater to them if they want their business.

    Health Savings Accounts are often the counter to the mainstream set up up insurance.

    I am not arguing with you that the health care system in America is in bad shape, but the problem is you're blaming the insurance companies. The source of the problem is from the government because through their mandates, they are literally forcing the insurers to increase value by economic nature. I've explained the repercussions of what publicly funded healthcare can create, and while many do go to Canada in search of a better service, many Canadians also come to the US because many of them are also very dissatisfied with their system.

    For people who are healthy in subsidized countries, it's something that is often overlooked. However, for people who have illnesses like Asthma or Diabetes or something else that might require frequent hospital and doctor visits, they are very unhappy. because of the rationing and the waits. They've had to hold a lotteries for people who have been on long waiting lists.

    Overall, I suspect we won't see eye-to-eye regarding what a right is since you are Communist and believe in totalitarianism and elected people deciding what people can and can't have while I lean toward Anarchism and believe people are free despite what others want to impose upon Mr. X and Ms. Y. I believe in natural rights and restoring the dignity of free people so that they can live to their potential. I'm against unjust aggression toward free people, and that's precisely how government gets its funding. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
  4. The German health system is not perfect. There was a report on television yesterday to which a hospital was not paid a part of the surgery costs; the health insurance companies had negotiated a so-called case flat rate with the politics because, to lower the costs. If somebody has e.g. an illness, the hospital gets a flat rate for the treatment of this illness. Everything which furthermore goes must pay the hospital. This is not fair
  5. There you go--this was cronyism that took place, not capitalism. At 77% of it being government run, of course they have an incentive to enact this rather than leaving it to private contract.

    It's like what your signature says “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Indeed. Issuing more government funding is precisely surrendering freedom for security. Govt. can't exist without restricting freedoms.
  6. Wrong! A government is not a single issue. WE as the People gave them power, so, WE as People can curbing their power.
  7. #27 LysanderShapiro, Oct 17, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2013
    We? I didn't give them power. I never voted for them. It's not we. I'm not wrong in this case because I never signed any sort of social contract.

    This was the initial idea of a republic--not a democracy. A democracy is a majority decision. The idea of the republic we originally had was that despite what the majority wants, you are protected from them.

    And even if that was not instituted in the Bill of Rights, the principle wouldn't be any less true. When the Nazi regime was in existence, because it was all legal and Hitler was chosen by the majority, this didn't mean what he did was OK merely because it was legal.

    This is why I politically identify more with folks like Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, and Murray Rothbard.

    Here's a short excerpt from one of Rothbard's books. Regarding why "We" are not the govt, I couldn't word it any better than he wrote it. I know it's cheap to just post a video, and this isn't meant to prove my point is right and disprove you, but I think it's some food for thought and does a good job in illustrating where I'm coming from.

    This short snippet from "The UnConstitutionality of Slavery" also nicely illustrates my position on government funding...

  8. By our voting in an election we have voted for somebody. Somebody else may have come to the power somebody by the voices of other citizens; but he/she is OUR president, chancellor, governor. I do not have voted for Mrs Merkel, nevertheless; because by the voices of the voters she got the power and she IS also my chancellor.. And through the power of all voters, we can take her this power away.
  9. Only if the majority says so can the power be taken away, but if the majority doesn't, then the minority is enslaved. I voted for neither Obama nor Romney in this past election. I was disappointed in both and refused to provide any support. I disagreed with them. But either way, it was either going to Obama or Romney and this would've left people like me having to submit to their policies even if I didn't want to accept them. And if I chose not to accept them and not submit to them via my taxation, I would've been put in jail for it.

    This is why this is slavery. This sort of political power antagonizes free people.
  10. Jutta, you're German, so maybe ask some folks who lived in the German Democratic Republic (GDR or DDR in German) before 1989 how great communism was. Shortage of nearly everything, no freedom of speech, extreme bureaucracy, and one half of the population members of the Stasi and spying on the other half. Worst part is that the European Union is evolving in the same direction: financially broke due to that insane euro-currency-experiment, and tons of legislation by non-elected politicians (did you ever get a chance to vote for or against Van Rompuy?) that's undermining the souvereignty of the national states. America may not be perfect but the EU is turning quickly into the EU-SSR.

Share This Page