American Elections '08

[Cops]

inclusive language includes words such as postulate. Busting out big words does not strengthen your arguments.

But I guess we're done, you agree with me that the IMF is garbage and you pretty much can't follow the topics I wish to discuss, fighting a debate on bananas with a debate on oil is just a piss off.

[Jerome Scuggs]

did anyone watch the ABC debates?

if anything, ron paul won the "least child-like" award, and when he spoke he was rarely refuted. he also made a brilliant case as to why all the problems - iraq, health care, etc - are inextricably tied to monetary and economic policy. even better, he was relatively thorough when explaining these points.

ii think paul's problem is, it's hard for him to stay on topic. when asked about any of the issues, he tries to bring it back to the economic thing. for me, though, it just seems like a problem with politics and not paul, because those sort of things are related, and you can't talk about one without the other.

the thing that annoys me the most about the debates is that for the most part, the politicians have correctly diagnosed the problems. romney, guiliani, and thompson all made great points as to why universal health care was a bad idea (even as far as saying that bureaucracy and regulation itself is the main obstacle to achieving quality health care), but it's what they choose to do to remedy the situation that i find fault with

i don't watch alot of mainstream politicians, and it was sort of terrifying. apparently they believe they can truly "run" an economy. i suppose they've done a fantastic job, they just need to "run" it more.

my parents don't take ron paul very seriously, but after watching the debates they said they felt paul did a great job, and at the very least proved that he was the only one who was literally mature enough to be a president.

now that obama's in the lead, all the GOP candidates are going to have to re-tool their campaigns - everyone except Ron Paul.

[Jerome Scuggs]

and on the IMF debate - when the IMF was created, it was seen as a great was to help the less-developed countries, and bring equality and economic security. noone foresaw the amazing plethora of problems it would spawn - except economists, of course, who argued that the IMF would wind up hurting underdeveloped countries and cause massive problems.

of course, these economists were obviously ignored, because there was a pressing need to save the third world countries. it was our duty to help them, we couldn't be "cold" and "calculating".

now that the full impact of the supranational monetary institutions has been seen, it's obvious that it must be dismantled.

mainstream socialists demanded the creation of the IMF in order to bring equality to people, and now they demand its dissolution because it's "capitalist" debt-slavery is ruining lives.

i think that's sad, because the main argument from austrian economist Murray Rothbard against the IMF was that it would be seen as "free trade" and an "economic" institution (like NAFTA), and he predicted the exact problems arising today. (for the record, the austrian school has pretty much predicted the path of our economy for the last 30-40 years, go figure).

but anyways, i think it should serve as a lesson. because even though it's not universal health care, it failed for the exact same reasons that universal health care will fail. it failed like social security is going to fail (the surplus is going to run out in what, 10 years? 5 years?), it failed like medicare failed. in every instance, the economics of the policy became subservient to the immediate needs of the moment, and the initial success was soon outweighed by the crushing miscalculation and plethora of unforeseen problems.

just remember - every politician who passed every law, policy or regulation truly believed that they were helping people, and they did it for the best of intentions and interests. but ultimately, it's not a question of policy A over policy B, it's a question of whether there should be policy at all.

[Squeezer]

just remember - every politician who passed every law, policy or regulation truly believed that they were helping people, and they did it for the best of intentions and interests. but ultimately, it's not a question of policy A over policy B, it's a question of whether there should be policy at all.

I honestly can't find it in myself to believe that.

Oh, and I'm down with Barack since the whole Kucinich/ Ron Paul ticket is a pipe dream.

[Cops]

just remember - every politician who passed every law, policy or regulation truly believed that they were helping people, and they did it for the best of intentions and interests. but ultimately, it's not a question of policy A over policy B, it's a question of whether there should be policy at all.

there's no sin in being an idealist. I completely agree with your opinions on the IMF, I doubt the creators of the IMF really knew how bad it would make things. I'm with squeezer though, I can't find it in myself to believe that every politician passes laws that they truly believed in.

I honestly can't find it in myself to believe that.

Oh, and I'm down with Barack since the whole Kucinich/ Ron Paul ticket is a pipe dream.

He's the most intelligent candidate that actually has a chance at winning this. I believe in his reform policies surrounding lobbyists. I believe in his policies and openness to talking to other countries. He might not be your first choice but he definitely is mine.

[MetalHeadz]

but anyways, i think it should serve as a lesson. because even though it's not universal health care, it failed for the exact same reasons that universal health care will fail.

Point taken about the IMF, but lay off national health care. I am proud of the NHS provided in the UK, it's one of our finest Government run institutions. It provides a high quality health service to everybody, yep not just those who can afford it, "go figure". It may not be the most efficient in terms of costs as there is not the same competition as seen in privatised medical economies but it is a pioneering and generally well run organisation. Critics who state it's weaknesses focus on the very complex beaurocratic power systems employed which admittedly you may not find in the private sector. However this does not undermine the fact that it is a truly phenomenal achievement indictative of a ethically evolved nation (something I'm not sure I could say about the USA.) Similarly with the IMF, in principle a truly amazing institution and I think your practical critique of the IMF is sourced in your reluctance to appreciate the need for international equity through financial means. You're very quick to pick the IMF up on it's failures but consider the amount of invaluable help it has offered to those countries requiring low interest loans and grants.

[Vatican Assassin]

It is often said that the beauracracy of universal health care is much larger than private health care, I find that difficult to believe. Private health care requires insurance companies, does universal health care?

Metal, you're right about how privatization of health care is in essence unethical. But I think cops practical skepticism of the IMF is not rooted in his "reluctance to appreciate the need for international equity through financial means," I think it comes from all the things we were talking about, like a $500 million loan for a dam which gets lost and the country never gets out of the stranglehold of debt and has to do whatever the international 1st world community dictates. In an economics class you can just dump a big low interest loan on an South American country and they use it to progress, but in the real world there is corruption, death squads, economic hit men, cout's, racism, and a lot of other factors which act to prevent the kid of growth you visualize. There is a reason why many of the countries the IMF has tried to help have not advanced, and its not just bad luck, or bad strategy, some of the times its for a planned reason.

[Kolar]

I've said it 50 times now that it shouldn't be a political issue. Privatization is only "good" if it is more efficient and cost effective, it shouldn't factor into a political or economic philosophy that it always works FOR EVERYTHING. And on the opposite side a state or semi-state operated service doesn't work for everything.

[Cops]

It is often said that the beauracracy of universal health care is much larger than private health care, I find that difficult to believe. Private health care requires insurance companies, does universal health care?

In Canada we still need to pay for dental, glasses, ambulances, contacts, medicine and a few other things. Not everything is provided but the majority is, me and Kolar are covered under two health plans. We're covered under Sun Life insurance that covers medicine, glasses every two years, $300 per year of massages and $300 per year for physiotherapy. I pretty much don't pay for contacts because of this plan, I also avoided a $2000 bill from my dentist when I had 4 impacted teeth removed last year, Kolar avoided a $1000 bill.

The last plan we're covered under is from ihaveaplan.ca which was covered in my tuition that is run by my student union. This plan doesn't cover much, it's not an amazing plan but it's good for people who's parents don't cover them while in school. I believe I have $75 per year of contacts (which kind of sucks considering I spend about $60 every three months in contacts), 70 - 80% from 'network' dentists. There's a few other services but a lot of it is restricted and takes a lot of time to actually get 'any' money back. This plan is similar to most American plans that I've read up on, it's not terrible but my mother's plan covers just about every little cost so this plan is more or less a waste of money, I tried to opt out of it this year but I was too late. I'm just gonna get a box or two of contacts then probably forget that I ever had it.

edit: Oh I forgot OHIP covers some costs that aren't covered by our health care, I believe if you're under 16-18 you do not pay for eye exams as well as other things including chiopractic and physical therapy. OHIP is geared towards helping minors.

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) is the government-run health plan for the Canadian province of Ontario.

I'm covered by sunlife, ihaveaplan.ca, my work is unionized that pays me if anything happens, OHIP, and of course our universal health care. I could also qualify for free health insurance from my work in 2-3 years or as soon as I am made full-time.

[Cylor]

I think we need more British input on this issue, the Canadians seem to be dominating.

[MetalHeadz]

In Canada we still need to pay for dental, glasses, ambulances, contacts, medicine and a few other things. Not everything is provided but the majority is, me and Kolar are covered under two health plans. We're covered under Sun Life insurance that covers medicine, glasses every two years, $300 per year of massages and $300 per year for physiotherapy. I pretty much don't pay for contacts because of this plan, I also avoided a $2000 bill from my dentist when I had 4 impacted teeth removed last year, Kolar avoided a $1000 bill.

The last plan we're covered under is from ihaveaplan.ca which was covered in my tuition that is run by my student union. This plan doesn't cover much, it's not an amazing plan but it's good for people who's parents don't cover them while in school. I believe I have $75 per year of contacts (which kind of sucks considering I spend about $60 every three months in contacts), 70 - 80% from 'network' dentists. There's a few other services but a lot of it is restricted and takes a lot of time to actually get 'any' money back. This plan is similar to most American plans that I've read up on, it's not terrible but my mother's plan covers just about every little cost so this plan is more or less a waste of money, I tried to opt out of it this year but I was too late. I'm just gonna get a box or two of contacts then probably forget that I ever had it.

edit: Oh I forgot OHIP covers some costs that aren't covered by our health care, I believe if you're under 16-18 you do not pay for eye exams as well as other things including chiopractic and physical therapy. OHIP is geared towards helping minors.

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) is the government-run health plan for the Canadian province of Ontario.

I'm covered by sunlife, ihaveaplan.ca, my work is unionized that pays me if anything happens, OHIP, and of course our universal health care. I could also qualify for free health insurance from my work in 2-3 years or as soon as I am made full-time.

I get mine for free and I never worry about it. My parents probably pay like 2% more tax than yours :/

[MetalHeadz]

I've said it 50 times now that it shouldn't be a political issue. Privatization is only "good" if it is more efficient and cost effective, it shouldn't factor into a political or economic philosophy that it always works FOR EVERYTHING. And on the opposite side a state or semi-state operated service doesn't work for everything.

It's nice to hear an American speak with neutrality on the privatisation vs. centralisation debate. A lecturer of mine said today that the American education system has a skewed approach to the free market and they overplay it's benefits too much: is this accurate?

[Cops]

It's nice to hear an American speak with neutrality on the privatisation vs. centralisation debate. A lecturer of mine said today that the American education system has a skewed approach to the free market and they overplay it's benefits too much: is this accurate?

I'd say your doesn't know the difference between an American and a Canadian.

Dude this is the shit I'm talking about, I said 'Kolar and me are covered under two health plans'. Stop talking and start reading.

[GuruMeditation]

So Clinton, Obama and Edwards are the 3 democrats so far?

They're the 3 democrats who are most likely to win their parties nomination to become the Democrat candidate for the presidency. There are other candidates, it's just they're outsiders right now.

[Galleleo]

From what I know about it, I really like the British Health Care system. NHS covers EVERYONE in Britain, no insurance needed at all. Though you can get insured for private health care.

Us Dutch do have a universal Healthcare system, but it has been privatised a bit lately and it does run through insurance companies. ANYONE can get help at a hospital without being asked about insurance and if its covers anything and stuff. So no-one gets rejected, EVERYONE is insured too. But the biggest problem is additional stuff, and insurance companies can indicate, hey you should do that one because the other one is experimental (more expensive). So yeah, I definitely like the British system more. But as I mentioned in a different thread, I do think that lately the Dutch government and stuff is moving in the wrong direction with all the privatising.