Odd. All those people must have lived in trees before government stepped in, then, huh. Seems strange the history books failed to mention that.
Government housing (like centralized planning of agriculture) only demonstrates the failure of the "well you have to have it so market rules don't apply" argument.
History books do mention it .... You just have to look harder, also government housing has been around almost as long as capitalism.
Wrong. Government housing is an excellent example of what happens when you let the government replace a market function. Destroyed communities yielding intergenerational patterns of self-destructive behavior locking people into cycles of poverty, crime, and squalor.
And when they take down the projects all that stuff goes away right?
Government housing doesn't CAUSE poverty, it's the result of it.
What your saying is aking to saying that hospitals cause sickness.
The capitalist market is free to build low income housing and sell them to poor people ... why don't they do it?
1. MRE was only in the military.
2. Government cheese was ended in the early 90s, and wasn't produced by the staet, it was bought and distributed by the state.
I don't know what else to say except that this is completely backwards. Capitalism exposes all private actors, including insurance companies, to competition. It requires the intervention of government to reduce, shape, or anull the effects of that competition. For example, our sugar growers are able to charge Americans much higher prices than the international cost of sugar without fear of competition - because they are protected by the government.
1. Not necessarily, monopolies, or close monopolies, oligarchies and so on arise all the time in Capitalism ALL THE TIME.
2. competition amung producers is one thing, but when it comes to insurance the problem is that one MUST buy insurance, and that the payouts are unpredictable and the incentive of the insurancers is to screw the consumers, thats why it should be a not for profit institution.
AS IT IS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD, and why the rest of the world delivers better healthcare results for much less of the cost.
That is unfortunately not correct - which is why cuts to reimbursement schedules are de facto reductions in care.
yes ... if yo ucan't afford something yo udon't get it, the insurance company FUNDS the healthcare, they don't deliver it.
Oh, there's individual autonomy? Oh, well, never mind. I stand corrected - that's fantastic. Please let me know where to go to fill out the paperwork to opt out of Obamacare and Social Security. I will be there first thing tomorrow.
Yes, the idea of "freedom" as "the government controlling ever increasing portions of your life in order to force enough redistribution in the attempt to meet a desired minimum set of results for all citizens" is indeed prisonesque.
1. You can opt out of Social Security, just don't take it, you're still paying the tax, you can opt out of Social Security when I can opt out of paying any tax that goes to military.
2. Obamacare, i.e. the mandate WAS A CONSERVATIVE IDEA that was thought up by the heratiage foundation and pushed origionally by karl rove.
3. My idea of "freedom" has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with you being able to have a say over the things in society that directly effect you, its the basis of democracy.
If I have to live with the results of a healthcare system, I should have a say over it no matter what my bank account says ....
You're idea of freedom is aparently, freedom for all ... that can afford it, and freedom from government tyranny, but you still ahve to live with whatever world the large corporations give you.
that is because the WHO rankings do not rank based on who actually provides care to the sick. As an example, one of the WHO's major scores is equity of care. So, for example, if there were a disease that killed 100% of those it afflicted in both America and Britain, and then someone in America invented a cure, but could only afford to give it to 50% of sufferers, the WHO would drop the US' score relative to Britain - despite the fact that Britain's mortality rate was still 100%, and America's was 50% - because at least all those Britons were dying equally. :roll:
