[Rictor]

That's because you are a libertarian. I'm a communist and I think more is the key thing here.

You are framing it weirdly. It's entirely possible to have vivid discussion and differing thoughts inside one large encompassing structure, especially in a two-party system such as USA. You, as a self-announced libertarian, should be quite aware of the fact that even the fringe is very able to fragment and change.

More is not the key when the people being trusted with money and power are a pack of gibbering baboons. Is there not some merit to the principle that anyone who wants power should under no circumstances be allowed to wield it, or at the very least be watched like a hawk and kept within legal bounds?

But the great thing is that I don't have to convince you - time will tell. It's entirely possible that Mr. Obama will be the next Prez, or Hilary Clinton, and then I will be sure to point out every time Asscrackistan is bombed or embargoed while the administration smiles for the cameras. The viciousness of American foreign policy is institutional, not the unique invention of George. W. Bush.

And here goes for differences: McCain opposes most abortion, Obama is pro-choice. Obama is much softer on drugs than McCain. Obama defends UHC, McCain opposes. Obama does not hug George Bush, McCain does. Obama is more tolerant of gay rights than McCain.

1. Will Obama abolish the War on Drugs? "Softer" is a matter of degrees.
2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.
3. McCain is from the socially liberal wing of the GOP. If Bush the Evangelical didn't change abortion policy, neither will McCain.
4. The 5-6% of Americans who are gay will be overjoyed. The other 6,482,000,000 of us can look forward to more of the same.

[Rictor]

I don't particularly care who wins the election as long as the enforce a little cultural change at the US State Dept (and others). Time to move beyond Realpolitik please, the Cold War is over.

I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough  not to start WW3.

It would also be nice if the new Pres elect could wind down the exceptionalism, the triumphalism, the militarism and the hypocrisy. But that would all come with abandoning Realpolitik.

That would also be very nice, but I have a hunch that this will come shortly after a cure for cancer, cold fusion and interstellar travel. In other words - ain't gonna happen.

[Kosh]

2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.

How is it unfeasible? It would force the government to finally do something the outrageous costs.


EDIT: And Obama won big in South Carolina.

[IceFire]

Universal health care is not unfeasible...but it will take guts considering the roadblocks that are up down there.  Most of the rest of the western democracies already have it and have for a very long time.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't particularly care who wins the election as long as the enforce a little cultural change at the US State Dept (and others). Time to move beyond Realpolitik please, the Cold War is over.

It would also be nice if the new Pres elect could wind down the exceptionalism, the triumphalism, the militarism and the hypocrisy. But that would all come with abandoning Realpolitik.

Nice thought, doesn't really work that way. Clinton the First kind of proved that cruise missile diplomacy is the order of the day then. The truth is that if you abandon that and act more according to principles then there's going to be a lot more military use, though it might be lower-key in nature.

I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing, mind you, since from where I'm sitting things like Operations Praying Mantis and Earnest Will, or Tomahawk strikes on places we find offensive rather than invading them, were vastly more effective uses of US military power than what we've done with Iraq.

[Janos]

That's because you are a libertarian. I'm a communist and I think more is the key thing here.

You are framing it weirdly. It's entirely possible to have vivid discussion and differing thoughts inside one large encompassing structure, especially in a two-party system such as USA. You, as a self-announced libertarian, should be quite aware of the fact that even the fringe is very able to fragment and change.

More is not the key when the people being trusted with money and power are a pack of gibbering baboons. Is there not some merit to the principle that anyone who wants power should under no circumstances be allowed to wield it, or at the very least be watched like a hawk and kept within legal bounds?

There is I was not denying that at all.
Libertarianism takes away the powers granted to elected governments and gives a very large percentage of that power to private companies who are do not answer to the will of the population but to the will of the shareholders. As such, it does not in any way dimish anything except governmental waste, which, although often harmful and undemocratic, can theoretically be ended with active participation in politics. Power would be shifted to private organizations and clubs.

But the great thing is that I don't have to convince you - time will tell. It's entirely possible that Mr. Obama will be the next Prez, or Hilary Clinton, and then I will be sure to point out every time Asscrackistan is bombed or embargoed while the administration smiles for the cameras. The viciousness of American foreign policy is institutional, not the unique invention of George. W. Bush.

And such is the face of politics and has always been. Not wanting for catastrophic change in the government type does not in any way mean that people arguing against it vehemently support all practices a certain type of government is capable of.

You also said that

I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough  not to start WW3.

Yet loath one very significant facet of it only three posts later.

And here goes for differences: McCain opposes most abortion, Obama is pro-choice. Obama is much softer on drugs than McCain. Obama defends UHC, McCain opposes. Obama does not hug George Bush, McCain does. Obama is more tolerant of gay rights than McCain.

1. Will Obama abolish the War on Drugs? "Softer" is a matter of degrees.[/quote]
**** if I knew. You asked for differences in political position. I gave them. If weed is your only issue, then go find a candidate who will actually do something about it.

2. UHC is financially unfeasible. Whether you're for or against it makes no difference.

Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.

3. McCain is from the socially liberal wing of the GOP. If Bush the Evangelical didn't change abortion policy, neither will McCain.

And once again, that is not what you asked, you asked for differences between two candidates.

4. The 5-6% of Americans who are gay will be overjoyed. The other 6,482,000,000 of us can look forward to more of the same.

And?

[Nuclear1]

Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.

France - 63,718,187
Canada - 33,390,141
UK - 60,776,238
US - 301,139,947

Population difference, mk?

The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans.  So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?

[Rictor]

How is it unfeasible? It would force the government to finally do something the outrageous costs.

Let's say that we could wave a magic wand and suddenly allocate half of the military budget to UHC. Never gonna happen, under any administration, but let's assume. That's $300b a year. Divide that by 300m Americans, and you get $1000/person/year. Given the costs of medical services in the US, there's no way in hell that this would be enough. The government can't set costs, so each person would be entitled to roughly one eye exam every year. Anything more and they would have to pay, same as now.

Not to mention the fact that, due to budget deficits and public debt, this $300b we're working with can't be (responsibly) spent in the first place without resorting to more loans. Which is, again, simply robbing the young and those yet unborn to pay for current expenditures.

[Janos]

Seems to be working pretty well for every other western country, though - and is generally a well-liked system, even with its weaknesses.

France - 63,718,187
Canada - 33,390,141
UK - 60,776,238
US - 301,139,947

Population difference, mk?

The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans.  So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?

And yet somehow Australia, which has a landmass about the size of continental USA but population of only 20 million, can somehow arrange universal health care for all citizens. And so can Netherlands, which has ten times the population density of USA.

The point about UHC is not that it is perfect, it is simply superior to all private systems there are. Do you think it's better to
A) have a UHC, even if a bad system, where everyone can be treated, or
B) have a private system where people without insurance will die of easily curable or preventable diseases?

[Kosh]

The US currently spends about 15% of its GDP on health care, which is the highest in the whole world, and yet we still can't cover the majority of Americans.  So, explain to me how you suggest for us to pay for all 300+ million of ours, when Canada still can't effeciently treat its senior citizens with one-tenth of our population?

You're forgetting something important: Healthcare costs in america are out of control and through campaign contributions the government has no incentive to do anything about it.

[Rictor]

What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices, or even influence them. The government, regardless of its intentions, is powerless on that front. Unless they close down all existing hospitals and convert them into public ones, thereby also making all doctors government employees. And I fully believe that there would be a revolution before that happened, given how profitable the medical industry is and how entrenched the idea of private medicine is in the US.

Unless I'm missing something.

[Kosh]

What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices,

It does, that is called "regulation"


Looks like Guiliani's campaign is dead, McCain won in Florida. I'm surprised Huckabee is doing so poorly.

[Nuke]

mccain is pretty cool, and he actually spent time in a pow camp. i have a soft spot for crazy people
voting hillary has charm as well, putting bill in the pink bedroom

[Rictor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vIAfBqWOL4&feature=related

[Hippy]

The view of the campaign here is Oz is pretty much that it's all about the 3 Dem candidates (O & H centric), with scant attention to the Reps.

Which is weird 'cos Oz's media has been fairly right-wing for the past decade or so. Maybe it's the Kev'olution.

Oh, and the problem of applying free-market economics to healthcare is that sooner or later some other country (like India), will be able to provide better, cheaper healthcare for the ones who can afford it, and the domestic medical industry collapses.

An interesting example can be found in Roman cities. The Romans built sewage systems throughout their cities regardless of who used them, poor or rich. Basically this was self-interest from the ruling class as the sewage systems kept diseases down in the cities, diseases that the rulers themselves might catch. The construction and maintenance also provided jobs for the pleb's. Sure it cost a lot of money, but the intangible benefits were enormous.

A similar philosophy can be applied to modern healthcare and welfare systems. The trick is to minimise the number of diseased beggars in the street.

[TopAce]

I wouldn't compare the Roman healthcare system to a postmodern one. We're talking about two worlds with different needs, social organization, and technological posibilities. Not to mention there was no capitalism at that time.

[karajorma]

I've still yet to hear a single good explanation why the HMOs couldn't be replaced with non-profit mutuals.


Of course I'm obviously a dangerous subversive and a *gasp* socialist for even suggesting that people might be better off with a private company that doesn't make a profit. 

[Janos]

What can it do? It has no legal authority to set prices, or even influence them.

Government has all the authority to deal with things their existing laws allow. Governments can legally set prices if they want to, because they can create a law to set prices.

You kept harping about states' rights in some other threads and states' complete sovreignity. So how come does a state not have sovereignity when it comes to taxation and public offices?

The government, regardless of its intentions, is powerless on that front. Unless they close down all existing hospitals and convert them into public ones, thereby also making all doctors government employees. And I fully believe that there would be a revolution before that happened, given how profitable the medical industry is and how entrenched the idea of private medicine is in the US.

USA already has public healthcare. It's just bad. The network exists and besides: many countries have both public and private medical institutions living in harmony. Often public healthcare even pays some money to private, were a person to select private over public (there are seriously like 20 different systems out there).

Unless I'm missing something.

20th century perhaps.

[Hippy]

I'm no fan of realpolitik, but it's pretty much the only reason you're not at war with Iran right now. Gates, Rice and Mullen are at least sane enough  not to start WW3.

Naaa, the Yanks aren't invading Iran because they know that if they do then the group that would benefit the most is Al-Qaeda. A-Q wants them to invade - OBL is on record as saying so. Prompting a US-Iran war is a top priority for them, hence neither Iran or the US are actually all that keen on doing so despite the rhetorical grandstanding. Us Oz'ians would be unlikely to support a US military action in Iran or if we did it would only be a token effort (like we're doing in Iraq & Afghanistan), however the new Oz gov is a bit more mindful of maintaining their soft power relationships than the previous gov.

Also the yanks can't afford it, Security Dilemma be damned.

Ask yourself this: throughout history, which great leaders have won wars by cutting taxes? There are systems known as 'war economies' for a reason.

Another interesting thought: we all talk about the 'war in Iraq'... but who are we at war with? Iraq? No, we're meant to be helping them...

[Rictor]

I've still yet to hear a single good explanation why the HMOs couldn't be replaced with non-profit mutuals.

Of course I'm obviously a dangerous subversive and a *gasp* socialist for even suggesting that people might be better off with a private company that doesn't make a profit. 

Dude, I live in a country with a decent public health-care system. I like it this way. I just don't think it's possible in the US right now.

The reasons are, broadly, social and practical. Social because HMOs, many doctors and somewhere between 30-50% of the population simply wouldn't stand for NHC. Technical because the US government owes so much money that they can not responsibly spend another penny on anything. Guns or butter, it doesn't matter. Costs being what they are, any amount of money which the government could feasibly contribute would be a drop in the bucket.

The reason NHC works in Britain, Canada and most other places is that there is a 50-year tradition of doing it that way. The system is in place, everyone is used to it, and the machine runs. What would be required in the US would be a virtual 180* turn. The medical industry is a behemoth that will not gentle step aside. And the government is effectively broke, so they can't chip in any money to insure the uninsured.

Government has all the authority to deal with things their existing laws allow. Governments can legally set prices if they want to, because they can create a law to set prices.

You kept harping about states' rights in some other threads and states' complete sovreignity. So how come does a state not have sovereignity when it comes to taxation and public offices?

If the government hasn't engaged in price-fixing for, AFAIK, several decades, why would they do and about-turn now? If a particular state wants to implement NHC, more power to them. I'm just wondering why none have done so. I'm also skeptical whether whether they actually have the power to tell a private practitioner, say a dentist, how much to charge for an exam. I admit that I don't have the specifics here, but it doesn't seem consistent with the extent of power that the government, whether state or federal, is generally granted in the US.