How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Uh... it doesn't work like that pal. Printing more money decreases the value of the currency in circulation. The way the government makes money is through taxation, not a printing machine.

So the competition would be to raise taxes even more, which people will or won't vote for. It's on the same competitive level. Nice try though.

I'm not going to get into that because the point still stands. A private entity can run out of money, the government however will not. Maybe a better comparison would have been the post office, it loses billions of dollars every year and still operates, the same will be said of govt. run healthcare, the same can not be said for a private entity however.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Credit is different from printing money. Do you just bang on the keyboard until words form? You can't be this fucking retarded..

No shit smart guy. Chillax and quit projecting. Read before you /rage-post.

The government still runs up a debt and doesn't have to run on a profit or even break even.

[Olo401]

I'm not going to get into that because the point still stands. A private entity can run out of money, the government however will not. Maybe a better comparison would have been the post office, it loses billions of dollars every year and still operates, the same will be said of govt. run healthcare, the same can not be said for a private entity however.

The post office hasn't been run by the government in decades, and when it was it was always financially stable. Bad comparison.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's certainly not a private entity, and could probably just replace "USPS" with "Amtrak".

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'm not going to get into that because the point still stands. A private entity can run out of money, the government however will not. Maybe a better comparison would have been the post office, it loses billions of dollars every year and still operates, the same will be said of govt. run healthcare, the same can not be said for a private entity however.

A government can print money all it wants and it doesn't mean shit. All three of you that replied to me have very little understanding of economics which makes me feel better about your opinions on healthcare. You just repeat scare tactics right wing talk shows shit all over your ears.

Just like a corporation, a government can go broke. It can lose its creditors and have no money to pay for or run anything, or amass a huge income / spending deficit. It's quite simple math and I'd assume you pro-business folk would have a basic understanding of these things. This is happening in other countries now and has happened before. The only upper hand the government has is a military, but if it can't pay its soldiers or buy ammo....

Now that I think about it's quite scary that the least informed citizens are the loudest critics of that which they have no understanding. You're nothing more than a religious mob out to burn a witch. Congratulations for taking us back 300 years. There's a reason we're called progressives, we want to move forward.

Printing more money means shit, it becomes nothing more than paper when there is nothing of value backing it and the value is seriously deflated.

So no, the "gumment" can't subsidize its own efforts to succeed for a variety of reasons. You three need to sit back down in 4th grade social studies classes and relearn you some economics.

[Beckwin]

one thing that frustrates me about conservatives talking about how the gov't is so inefficient and would just print money to cover it's terrible programs yada yada yada is that when you actually look at the current debt, the huge bulk of it came as a result of free-market reforms and military expenditures. We're 11 trillion in not because of Medicare, Social Security, public education, welfare, or the goddam USPS but because of Reagan's butchering of the progressive tax system, large corporate deregulations, and fearmonger military buildups/conflicts.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

one thing that frustrates me about conservatives talking about how the gov't is so inefficient and would just print money to cover it's terrible programs yada yada yada is that when you actually look at the current debt, the huge bulk of it came as a result of free-market reforms and military expenditures. We're 11 trillion in not because of Medicare, Social Security, public education, welfare, or the goddam USPS but because of Reagan's butchering of the progressive tax system, large corporate deregulations, and fearmonger military buildups/conflicts.

It's really a quite clever scam they have going on here, they fuck everything up when they're in office then when a Dem comes into office they point and say "See everything's fucked up gumment bad ," get re-elected and then go on spending sprees and fuck everything up again.

For a constituency that's so hellbent on government accountability and limitation they do a very poor job of policing their own representatives.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What about unfunded liabilities Beckwin? What do the majority of those come from?

And I'll rephrase for you Finesse. Private entities will go broke long before the government does.

[pohibaba]

A government can print money all it wants and it doesn't mean shit. All three of you that replied to me have very little understanding of economics which makes me feel better about your opinions on healthcare. You just repeat scare tactics right wing talk shows shit all over your ears.

Do you deny that a government funded entity will have an innate advantage over a privately funded entity?

[Serif]

I'm not going to get into that because the point still stands. A private entity can run out of money, the government however will not. Maybe a better comparison would have been the post office, it loses billions of dollars every year and still operates, the same will be said of govt. run healthcare, the same can not be said for a private entity however.

The post office hasn't been run by the government in decades, and when it was it was always financially stable. Bad comparison.

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation, and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[16] The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld the USPS's statutory monopoly on access to letterboxes against a First Amendment freedom of speech challenge; it thus remains illegal in the U.S. for anyone other than the employees and agents of the USPS to deliver mailpieces to letterboxes marked "U.S. Mail."[17]

Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 and then the Supreme Court ruling stated above.

I am just trying to learn more but that seems like a government controlled entity even though it says it isn't. Not trolling or trying to piss you off, I usually try to stay out of these conversations seeing how I think most of you are bat shit crazy. But I am always open to learning different viewpoints.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Do you deny that a government funded entity will have an innate advantage over a privately funded entity?

They have their own separate set of obstacles based on the definition of what they are. Then you're posing a loaded question. What kind of government?

How is Blackwater, a paramilitary organization, operating well alongside our military. A military which by your definition is in direct competition with Blackwater?

There is a level of synergy that is trying to be created between both concepts but you feel to only see it as black and white. The surface tension is essentially "I'm not paying tax money so some poor nigger can have crack babies aborted." This may not be your frame of mind, but that's the sort of fear being played on by plucking those delicate strings of the base of opposition and you're being sucked right into it.

So in your tin-foil hat world yes the government has an innate advantage because Hilterbama will exterminate the whites through death camps because it will use the military and propaganda to enslave the citizenry.... oh wait wasn't that something Bush and his neo-con advisors tried to do?

In reality, in this specific situation, no the government does not have an innate advantage over a private for profit entity. If anything, in our current government, a private entity has the advantage as we see with astounding statistics like 374 lobbyists per congressperson.

A government-backed program has no financial influence and is subject to the ebb and flow of politics. As soon as a republican majority comes back it will be watered down all to hell or removed completely. So please, stop with the naive babe in the woods act and get with it, man.

[Beckwin]

Do you deny that a government funded entity will have an innate advantage over a privately funded entity?

A government entity will actually have to cover the care of pre-existing conditions, and won't drop someone when they need care the most, so I'd count that as a major disadvantage, financially at least.

[pohibaba]

They have their own separate set of obstacles based on the definition of what they are. Then you're posing a loaded question. What kind of government?

How is Blackwater, a paramilitary organization, operating well alongside our military. A military which by your definition is in direct competition with Blackwater?

There is a level of synergy that is trying to be created between both concepts but you feel to only see it as black and white. The surface tension is essentially "I'm not paying tax money so some poor nigger can have crack babies aborted." This may not be your frame of mind, but that's the sort of fear being played on by plucking those delicate strings of the base of opposition and you're being sucked right into it.

So in your tin-foil hat world yes the government has an innate advantage because Hilterbama will exterminate the whites through death camps because it will use the military and propaganda to enslave the citizenry.... oh wait wasn't that something Bush and his neo-con advisors tried to do?

In reality, in this specific situation, no the government does not have an innate advantage over a private for profit entity. If anything, in our current government, a private entity has the advantage as we see with astounding statistics like 374 lobbyists per congressperson.

A government-backed program has no financial influence and is subject to the ebb and flow of politics. As soon as a republican majority comes back it will be watered down all to hell or removed completely. So please, stop with the naive babe in the woods act and get with it, man.

A couple of questions: 1) Are you confusing me for a Republican? If not, why mention President Bush? I promise you that I disliked his presidency as much as you did. 2) What's with the condescending attitude you give to every single person you reply to? It's like your more interested in entertaining your internet buddies and getting a cyberspace high-five than in having a simple discussion. Quit it.

[Serif]

A government-backed program has no financial influence and is subject to the ebb and flow of politics.

Since we were somewhat on the subject of the USPS wouldn't a stamp price hike have financial influence?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

A government entity will actually have to cover the care of pre-existing conditions, and won't drop someone when they need care the most, so I'd count that as a major disadvantage, financially at least.

It's only a financial disadvantage if the government can't easily replace the money it spends on those things, which it can.

[Sirrus_Asura]

A government can print money all it wants and it doesn't mean shit. All three of you that replied to me have very little understanding of economics which makes me feel better about your opinions on healthcare. You just repeat scare tactics right wing talk shows shit all over your ears.

Just like a corporation, a government can go broke. It can lose its creditors and have no money to pay for or run anything, or amass a huge income / spending deficit. It's quite simple math and I'd assume you pro-business folk would have a basic understanding of these things. This is happening in other countries now and has happened before. The only upper hand the government has is a military, but if it can't pay its soldiers or buy ammo....

Now that I think about it's quite scary that the least informed citizens are the loudest critics of that which they have no understanding. You're nothing more than a religious mob out to burn a witch. Congratulations for taking us back 300 years. There's a reason we're called progressives, we want to move forward.

Printing more money means shit, it becomes nothing more than paper when there is nothing of value backing it and the value is seriously deflated.

So no, the "gumment" can't subsidize its own efforts to succeed for a variety of reasons. You three need to sit back down in 4th grade social studies classes and relearn you some economics.

Doesn't this devalue everyone's currency then? I'd say that sucks for most people if so.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

A couple of questions: 1) Are you confusing me for a Republican? If not, why mention President Bush? I promise you that I disliked his presidency as much as you did. 2) What's with the condescending attitude you give to every single person you reply to? It's like your more interested in entertaining your internet buddies and getting a cyberspace high-five than in having a simple discussion. Quit it.

1) No I used Bush as example of what conservatives do while in power. I can use Reagan, or Nixon if you'd like.

2) You're right, you've been respectful to me in debate and I shouldn't have gone over the top. I have a tendency to carry my verbal jazz hand replies from a poster who is being disrespectful or retarded onto the next poster who is not doing so. For that I apologize.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It's only a financial disadvantage if the government can't easily replace the money it spends on those things, which it can.

Printing more money isn't replacing money. The government still works on the basis of income and spending just like a company, just like a consumer.

United States dollar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sirrus_Asura]

Printing more money isn't replacing money. The government still works on the basis of income and spending just like a company, just like a consumer.

United States dollar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you said it devalues the money(Fiat currency, supply and demand drives its value right?), this where the fear of inflation comes into play correct?

[guartz]

They have their own separate set of obstacles based on the definition of what they are. Then you're posing a loaded question. What kind of government?

How is Blackwater, a paramilitary organization, operating well alongside our military. A military which by your definition is in direct competition with Blackwater?

There is a level of synergy that is trying to be created between both concepts but you feel to only see it as black and white. The surface tension is essentially "I'm not paying tax money so some poor nigger can have crack babies aborted." This may not be your frame of mind, but that's the sort of fear being played on by plucking those delicate strings of the base of opposition and you're being sucked right into it.

So in your tin-foil hat world yes the government has an innate advantage because Hilterbama will exterminate the whites through death camps because it will use the military and propaganda to enslave the citizenry.... oh wait wasn't that something Bush and his neo-con advisors tried to do?

In reality, in this specific situation, no the government does not have an innate advantage over a private for profit entity. If anything, in our current government, a private entity has the advantage as we see with astounding statistics like 374 lobbyists per congressperson.

A government-backed program has no financial influence and is subject to the ebb and flow of politics. As soon as a republican majority comes back it will be watered down all to hell or removed completely. So please, stop with the naive babe in the woods act and get with it, man.

jesus fucking christ people, this inst brain surgery. A fair competition would be an operation within equal parameters where certain variables are equalized for competitors of the same market share. Chiefly expense and profit. This is business 101. You operate on the presumptions of gaining profit through expense, otherwise operation itself is invalid/flawed, the same profit and expense variables apply to all private entities competing for market share. A government operation, no matter how entrepreneurial, is not subject to the same equalizing factors, it can operate on loss, through tax-base/fiat currency, which it has no competitor for, and it does not limit it's operations on profitability. No equalizing factors inherently mean, not a fair competition. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS 2+2. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS WITHOUT LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT.