I feel like your missing a proper understand of what it was like in the USSR. They weren't even able to plan properly for 1 product let a lone the billions of products that exist today.

A clear example of this was the car industry in USSR; it was impossible to walk into a store and buy a car. There was a waiting list of over a year; because the USSR was never able to properly determine the proper amount of production of cars. It didn't just fail at this intermittently. It actually never got it right throughout the history of the USSR.

So if the USSR was unable to plan the production of a single line of cars; what makes you think you or anyone else can manage the production of something like medicine.

Boogy; no one gets turned down for medical care in the USA.

Also don't change the subject. You claimed that I'm an ideologue that never admits mistakes. I responded.

You keep coming into the thread; posting; leaving; coming back later; and changing the subject again. Stop posting like a schizophrenic and keep on a topic. It is unfair to post; then disappear; and not respond to my response.

emergency^

Boogy where do you think rights come from?

(1) Why do you insist on linking universal health care to the USSR? As a Canadian, let me tell you that this comparison is absurd. There are many examples of effective contemporary universal health care systems in advanced Western democracies. I feel like you are using that comparison for ideological reasons; by construing universal healthcare as a Marxist/Communist policy, you hope to conceal the fact that it is enacted effectively by liberal democratic centrist governments throughout the Western world.

If universal health care really is so dysfunctional, why does is the US ranked beneath so many countries with universal health care on the WHO rankings?

(2) You are correct that uninsured people with life-threatening illness are never refused care at the ER of certain hospitals. But they are forced to go to the worst hospitals and are treated by whatever doctor is available at the time. These people have no option of seeing a regular doctor, who could deliver treatment based on familiarity with that patient's medical history. Poor people with chronic illness, like diabetes or HIV, are made especially vulnerable by this system.

Also, forcing poor people to wait until they are in a medical crisis before seeking treatment makes no economic sense; it would be much more effective to deliver preventative and regular health services to these people before their medical problems escalate to an expensive, life-threatening crisis.

(3) I apologize if my comment that you never concede offended you. You can't deny, though, that you are very dogmatic in your libertarian ideology.

Otherwise, I haven't been schizophrenic in my contributions to this thread. Over the past several days I sustained a prolonged, focused discussion with you.

(4) As for your question about the origin of rights, I'm wondering why you ask? Should I really break out the Hobbes and Rousseau?

Also: Its curious to me that you to defend yourself to mention that no one is refused emergency medical treatment.

It seems to me that leaving the sick and uninsured poor people for dead seems compatible with your libertarian economic/moral philosohpy. If they are weak, let them perish, am i right?

I think there may be a few seeds of empathy buried somewhere beneath the Ayn Rand novels.

@boogy

(1) USSR comparison is valid; because USSR is an example of a centrally planned system that went through it's full courses to collapse. Also there is a ton of data on the USSR so it makes a good point of comparison with actual conclusions possible to draw. Don't you worry; in 10 years time; there will be many examples of universal health care systems collapsing; at that point; I'll start using those examples.

Why do you imply that I am concealing the original of these laws? It is a bit concerning that your dogmatic world view leads you to instantly believe that those who disagree with you have character flaws. I have never done anyone unethical since the day I met you. Yet you still imply in conversations with me that I conceal; lie; and otherwise have suspect morals. Where does this thinking come from? It certainly isn't grounded in fact.

The USA is dysfunctional because of central planning. I've stated this earlier. If you believe that the USA is a free market private system then you are seriously mistaken. The USA medical industry is heavily regulated and contains many many socialized programs; such as medicare; medicaid; prescription drug programs; etc.

(2) This is simply untrue. There isn't a single hospital in the country that turns away people in the ER. Please name one; or concede the point.

Also you state that it is unfair to make poor people wait for medical care. Ummmm are you really from Canada or just pretending? The wait for medical care in Canada is longer then the wait for medical care in the USA; by many months in some cases. Some treatments require years of waiting. The only thing that Canada has successfully done; is make everyone wait; instead of just the poor people.

If Canada has such a great system; then why do towns that border with Canada have a lucrative "medical tourism" industry; where Canadians come to the USA for treatments that they are unable to get in Canada; because of wait times. In fact; Canadian doctors even recommend for patients with certain illnesses to go to the USA for treatment; because waiting for the Canadian system to provide a bed would possibly cost them their lives.

(3) I'm not offended.

(4) Well before you can discuss the ethics of one program over another you need to start at the root of where rights come from. Please let me know where you think rights come from; without reading Rousseau; I'd prefer your opinion. Where do rights come from; and what rights are these?

It's odd to me that I constantly talk of myself as being a libertarian. Yet always try to tell me what I am. Sometimes you say I am conservative; sometimes you say I'm an objectivist.

Certainly you could try just listening to me instead of trying to label me to the benefit of your argument.

Also we should just discuss this on tinychat; because talking is so much easier then writing these walls of text. Plus the lack of ability to edit posts for typos is annoying.

if you look at historical GDP of the soviet union, it acctually shows a similar growth to the US. I had dificulty finding sources that agreed with eachother, but according to thisone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29

soviet went from about 500KM to 1500KM from 1950 to 1970, while usa went from about 1500KM to about 3500KM, so outgrowing in number, but not in percentage.


thisone show in GDP, growth from 1970 to 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif

as you can see, HUGE growth. so the centrally planned economy worked for the majority of the time. and as I said, if they had better governship of the centrally planned system, it would have worked better.


"Central planning in my eyes is not only immoral and unethical (you are literally manipulating people's lives)"

I do not think we two agree on what central planning is then, becaucse it has nothing to do with KGB or any other things in the USSR system. it has to do with planning what to produce and where.


"My question is why are you so adamant about finding a solution that involves basically everyone's lives run by computers "

I would not do that. I would use computers to better be able to predict the needs, based on statistics, and to better figure out more efficient plans on how to produce, which resources to go where, and how big manpower is needed.

and I will concede that one of the bad things about central planning is that it says stuff like "only X people can be engineers" or "we need "10000 people to live here" , but that is also happening in every system, it just happens by money instead.

"Why can't people just be free to make their own choices? " why would not people be able to make their own choises in a centraly planned economy?


you are arguing against a totalitarian centrally planned on EVERYTHING state, not a centrally planned economy.



so let me summarise this post,
- the USSRs economy would have worked BETTER with computers to help control the economy.
- I am not arguing saying it would be a perfect state (but I think you believe your position would lead to a perfect state, which is a really dangerous oppinion to believe one has the perfect solution)
- you are arguing against a centrally planned totalitarian state that believed it could do more than it could.

- so let me say this, I never claimed central planning would be the best solution, but that does not mean it does not work, I did not say it can be handled completly by computers, I said computers would help.



but really, the reason we started this is that I said that the USSR analogy is not comparable, and it still is not. there have been several sufficiently effective systems that have been centrally planned, and right now, the european healthcare system is working better than the US, better coverage, and it costs less to run.


I would also like to get back to the discussion, I feel I have described USSR enough to say that centrally planning the entire economy is far different from central guidelines, but distributed planning a healthcare system.


you still think of any other position than yourown as the devil and are not willing to concede a real point, only a few facts.

were you willig to concede that a doctor would prescribe more drugs in order to keep his patient? if so, then you agree there are effects going both ways and you should also agree that there are no data we have seen that would make us able to determin which effect was strongest.