matt, trey and socialized medicine

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Postby Just_Jackie » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:50 am

I think the debate of socialized medicine is an important one to have, but it needs to be done honestly. Let's create a hypothetical situation.

A small family making about $30k a year. A mother, father and two kids. The parents are watching CNN when they see this giant douche bag named Michael Moore hollering and screaming and saying in response about socialized medicine, "It is free". So these two concerned parents get riled up and one thing leads to another and the US adopts socialized medicine.

Right when it in implemented, the parents get their first post UHC paycheck and it is 20% less than it was before. Where did their money go? Oh! It went into the socialized medicine healthcare system! Well Michael Moore didn't step up and tell them that did he? No he is on CNN screaming how socialized medicine is free. So now they are without a good chunk of money that was going to be used to feed their family. What money they do have left they use to buy food and clothes, only to find that the national sales tax has shot up to 11% and now there is also a state sales tax to add onto it. So they had the sh*t taxed out of them, they have less money to feed their family, but since health care is free people are running to the doctor for every little hangnail and as a result the US is now $15 billion dollars in debt.

People like Michael Moore are the ones who is punishing poor people. He is filling the heads of poor Americans with ideas of this so called wonderful free healthcare system just to propel his own Anti GWB agenda.

Look at Medicaid/Medicare if you are wondering how it will go over..
SuperMaids
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:35 am

Postby SuperMaids » Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:58 am

Capitolist medicine is as unthinkably alien, and wholy disgusting, to me as reading the Bible is to the avarage firebrand Evangelist.
I know I've never expierienced it but; a system where people who don't claw their way to financial success don't have the same right to live as those ruthless enough to do so?
It makes me want to use words I've only ever heard from Bill O'Riley!
It makes me want to post without a real argument to back me up!

But yeah, it would be interesting to see M&T take on this; seeing as there economic libertanians (scurge to all the true Libertanians in the world, the social libertanians!) they probably think poor people deserve to die horrible deaths.
But I can live with them being wrong once in a while 8)
Keejit
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:54 pm

Postby Keejit » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:16 pm

Big-Will wrote:Socialized medicine and the free market don't mix very well. If you want the best medical care, you want to go where it's available, and those places are very competitive about their medical care. That means getting faster [size=7]service for a price. With socialized medicine, it doesn't matter how long it takes for you to get medical care, so you could be in need for months before someone comes around to treat you, and the medical care you get may not be all that great, all because the competitive incentive isn't there. And if the government has to pay for all our medical care, then everyone, even the poor, will feel it in higher taxes, which conservatives and libertarians don't want - higher taxes lead to depressed economies.

I'm sorry but that's a very ill-informed and extremely limited view on how socialised medicine and economies work in general.

Almost very country in Europe has a public health service system (some systems work better than others - obviously) but the tax rates are only slightly higher than rates in the US. Some European tax rates are much higher - these economies are not 'depressed' or in recession.

The health and well-being of a country is part of the nation's responsibility. This can be shared amongst the population for the greater good.

Here's on socialised medicine example:
Paid statutory maternity leave in Ireland is 28 weeks (most other European countries offer much longer paid maternity leave).

The majority of Irish employers offer extra time after this period at a full or reduced paid rate & will also offer unpaid maternity leave as an option after than again. On average most women take 8 months mostly paid maternity leave.

I will never have kids, I don't care for the little blighters. However, I do not begrudge any of my taxes going towards this. I think it's the right thing for governments to do. We have a public health system which is struggling in some areas and works very well in others. I'd much prefer it to be there than not & this is the majority view.

According to your 'logic' this is the scenario - e.g., Canada has a public health system so they pay higher taxes & therefore their economy is depressed. Correct?

http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546 ... _1,00.html
This is an OECD comparative spreadsheet on tax rates through the world. In 2006, US average is 28%, Canada is 27%, as is Ireland's. France's average is 33% & Australia's average tax rate is 30% as is the UK's. These economies are not 'depressed'.

So how do poor people pay for tests, doctor's visits, prescriptions, operations etc, in the US? How does the competitive medical business work for those who are not rich? If they can't afford these, what happens? What happens in a emergency case?

One thing - the RS interview wherein Matt Stone mentioned he was against socialised medicine he also said he was in favour of free markets except for in cases of dropping public funding for roads and education. Kinda bizarre not to consider medicine too. Why not include medicine ? Or, why can't roads be part of a competitive free market if medicine is?


JUST JACKIE - Also a question or two about France being 15billion in debt - is that US$ or Euro? Where did you get/read/see this information?

I think in all cases a little information is a bad thing.

How much is the national debt of the US? And what is that debt due to?

It would be good to know for a balanced overall view for those reading this thread & interested in the subject.


I find this 'libertarian' point of view to be a pussy cop out. E.g., 'I'm right-wing and/or Republican but I'm also in favour of gay marriage cos a member of my family is gay'. In fact that whole RS interview was a very disappointing insight of the cult of MnT in their SP world with their underlings hanging on their every word/joke/fart & possibly the end of their dicks.

I very much hope this is not the case. Keef Bartkus, editor at SP wrote a letter to RS Editor saying how disappointing the SP piece was considering how much access they made available to RS for the article.


If anyone decides to reply to this post please read it carefully before doing so. Thank you
Last edited by Keejit on Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:06 pm

Keejit wrote:So how do poor people pay for tests, doctor's visits, prescriptions, operations etc, in the US? How does the competitive medical business work for those who are not rich? If they can't afford these, what happens? What happens in a emergency case?

In many cases they simply do without all of this because they can't pay for it or afford it. Otherwise they sign up for Welfare, which has been revamped so it runs out for the recipient after five years or the recipient finds work, whichever comes first. A lot of emergency rooms in L.A. have closed because they have too many poor patients who can't pay for those services. The conservative view is that everyone under socialized medicine, not just the poor, will have this effect on emergency rooms, or that they won't have the latest medical knowledge tp treat people like the US does, since all the money goes to treatment and not research.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Postby Just_Jackie » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:44 pm

Keejit wrote:JUST JACKIE - Also a question or two about France being 15billion in debt - is that US$ or Euro? Where did you get/read/see this information?

I think in all cases a little information is a bad thing.

How much is the national debt of the US? And what is that debt due to?

It would be good to know for a balanced overall view for those reading this thread & interested in the subject.


I agree that a little information is always a bad thing, which was the reason for my post. The biggest cheerleader in the US for socialized medicine is Michael Moore and he uses the word FREE way to much. I have no problem with people being for socialized medicine. I agree that the government should help those those who are poor. I am a college student who is uninsured so I agree that socialized medicine would benefit me. I just want to make sure that people are aware of the exact details, not just the pretty picture.

Now to address your questions. I'm *assuming* that the quoted $15 billion dollar debt the French government has is the Euros amount converted to US dollars. If you would like to see where I get my info from...you can see it here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gGncsJziH2o

This is one part of a three part interview. Links to part two and three are available on there.

As far as the US debt is concerned, I will go on record and say that I don't know how much it is, but, due to the nature of government and the differences in population between the US and France, I'm willing to bet the US debt is much higher. Again, it was not my intention to say "Well the France debt is worse than that of the US." I mean for God sake there are toilet seats in the White House that are several hundred dollars each! As I said, people that have the ear of the US citizens are only waving the "free" flag so to speak and tend to leave out the tax situation. I really feel that is an essential part of the debate. The way governments get their money is taxing it's citizens. If a person who is aware of the ENTIRE situation that exists with socialized medicine is in favor of it, that's great. But preying on the lack of education within certain groups of people is evil.

Also, as far as Keef's letter, If you can find and send me a copy I'd be very open to read it. It's been my very very limited expierence with him that he is a nice guy so I'm open to hear what he has to say.

And, to finish, I find your words about Libertarians to be insulting. I myself was a Libertarian long before I knew Matt and Trey were. And I am for low taxes as well as gay marriage for the same reason. I don't want the government in my personal business, meaning my wallet or my personal love life. Now, personally I am not gay, but if they can tell gays they can't marry, next they are going to try to say I can't marry outside of my race or something and I will not tolerate that at all. I feel that way very strongly. Every paper I wrote in my first two years of college have been on being a supporter of gay marriage and no one in my family is even gay. I don't know how things run at South Park, but not everyone who is a Libertarian is so because of Matt and Trey.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6124
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:18 pm

America's federal budget deficit is just under $9 Trillion and rising. That's Trillion with a T.

If France is $15 billion in the red, that's nothing. America adds that much to it's tab every couple weeks.

And people are right to point out the "free" fallacy of universal health care. It's not free, the cost is mearly distributed among all taxpayers. Just like how we are all currently paying for essential things such as the military and roads and massive subsidies to energy conglomerates. Universal health care in America is going to have to go hand in hand with a major re-shuffling of how the federal government collects and distributes funds.

We can start by pulling Bush's rich people subsidy (better known by the clever moniker "tax cuts*"). Those rich mo-fo's don't need that charity.

Also, we're already paying the cost of a national health care system, but we're not getting the service. The difference gets pocketed by billionaires at phramecuetical companies and insurance companies. That money should be going towards covering every citizen, not ivory back-scratchers and annoying commercials for boner pills.

With some kind of universal health care, you might see your taxes go up a little, but that massive monthly deduction from your paycheck for your health insurance payment disappears. That's more money in your pocket every pay period, not less.

And if socialized medicine/universal health care results in such crappy care, why is it that people live longer in all these countries that have it?
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:26 pm

triplemultiplex wrote:We can start by pulling Bush's rich people subsidy (better known by the clever moniker "tax cuts*"). Those rich mo-fo's don't need that charity.

Conservatives will say that the rich can just pass the cost down to the poor in the form of fewer jobs and lower salaries to make up for the higher taxes.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Postby Just_Jackie » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:44 pm

triplemultiplex wrote: And people are right to point out the "free" fallacy of universal health care. It's not free, the cost is mearly distributed among all taxpayers.


Who do you think a 16% income tax and a 5% payroll tax is going to be harder on? Someone who is a CEO, or someone who makes $6 an hour.

I also think the argument about how long people live is trite.

People die from car/boat/motorcycle accidents, carbon monoxide inhalation, bad falls, animal attacks, murder, drug overdose etc all the time...in other words a lot of reasons other than a medical reason that can be treated...it's not really a factor that should be used to judge socialized or private medicine as good or bad.
Keejit
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:54 pm

Postby Keejit » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:39 pm

Just Jackie - My comments about libertarianism were not directed at you. I tend not to take it as a personal insult if someone criticises the politics I subscribe to - it's debate. My opinions in this thread are not intended to be personally taken by anyone. I'm sorry you see it that way but the intention was not there. I didn't suggest or infer that Libertarians as so because of MnT's viewpoints. That certainly would be trite.


Michael Moore's documentaries and viewpoints are, as most people are aware, heavily weighted to his own agenda and therefore cannot be interpreted as objectively presented fact. What his opinions can evoke is debate & research to obtain real fact and information for one's self. In a perverse way this in itself is actually positive. The whole 'free' argument MM uses regarding health systems in other countries is very clearly a fallacy. I'd be surprised if most people didn't understand that the monies to support a specific service such as a public health care system must come from an obvious source, ie income tax.

My assertion here is that the majority of people I've met in different countries (and my research of articles on various reputable news websites world wide etc), who pay a comparative or higher tax rate to those in the US to fund a public health system are not complaining about it and want to continue to contribute and hopefully improve this system. Of course, there are those who disagree but they are a small minority

Hence my example of the statutory maternity leave allowance to demonstrate one way this system operates in tandem with business & with a direct benefit. Only a few years ago the maternity leave allowance in Ireland was 14 weeks - its almost doubled but to no ill effect or protest.

Please don't take these arguments as direct comment on you - this is part of my contribution to the general debate here. If I ask a direct question it's to clarify what is asserted or proposed - not to personalise a comment.

Keef Bartkus's letter can be found within this linked snippet on youtube. I hope he doesn't mind this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FylakDl_ST4

I'm posting it but at the risk of it being taken off as Viacom, who own CC, has a very specific, if rather shortsighted (IMHO), view of youtube.

A general question on the 'trickle down' effect mentioned above: Did/does that really work in an economically viable way or did it maintain a 'class' (so to speak) system whereby the rich remained rich and the poor(er) were kept in their place...? Discuss!
Just_Jackie
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:38 am

Postby Just_Jackie » Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:32 am

Keejit wrote:Michael Moore's documentaries and viewpoints are, as most people are aware, heavily weighted to his own agenda and therefore cannot be interpreted as objectively presented fact. What his opinions can evoke is debate & research to obtain real fact and information for one's self. In a perverse way this in itself is actually positive. The whole 'free' argument MM uses regarding health systems in other countries is very clearly a fallacy. I'd be surprised if most people didn't understand that the monies to support a specific service such as a public health care system must come from an obvious source, ie income tax.


One reason I find myself so passionate about this debate is that I live in El Paso, Texas which is an extremely poor area of the US. Luckily, I am a little bit better off than most here as well as fortunate enough to be pursuing an education beyond high school. I was a political reporter for a local college newspaper when the 04 general elections happened and had to interview several college students.

I swear...I wanted to just pull my hair out. I found that for most of the people, their political views were backed up by "Well because my dad/mom/auntie told me." A lot of these people don't pay attention to political issues as they are so broke they are working 14 jobs just trying to make ends meet! Then when they aren't working they want to be relaxing in thier own favorite way. Politics and/or social issues are not high on their priority list. They hear someone they trust say something like "If the US had socialized medicine it would FREE!" (possibly having heard this from Sicko) and they would totally believe it ...then would be blind sided by the tax hike. I understand why you would assume that people would know better, but please do not make that assumption.

Perfect example: I interviewed a woman who identified her age as 42. There was an issue going around involving making renovations to a local El Paso area that had fallen apart. When I asked her how she thought the local government should raise the money she went on a rant about "why should the government have to tax the people to pay for everything". I was so completely taken aback I didn't know what to say. There are people out there who are genuinely unaware of how "the system" works.
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:15 pm

Keejit wrote:A general question on the 'trickle down' effect mentioned above: Did/does that really work in an economically viable way or did it maintain a 'class' (so to speak) system whereby the rich remained rich and the poor(er) were kept in their place...? Discuss!

There is no evidence that the trickle down effect works as advertised.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

In theory (I should say "hypothesis") the rich will use the extra money to hire people and contribute through philanthropy. The problem is that this is no guarantee, and is entirely contingent on what these top earners choose to do. The top 1% of earners did not get there by giving away their money. Compare this to targeting tax breaks to the middle and lower classes. Those people spend most of what they earn; they have to in order to live from day to day. This is a lot more of a guarantee than the idea that the rich will hire people or donate to charity.

My question would be, has taxing the rich actually harmed the economy? Ever? Like when Clinton did it? (hint, hint)
Cartman's Top Enemy
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:37 am

Postby Cartman's Top Enemy » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:42 pm

Wish I'd got back to this sooner, but my DSL got fried in an electrical storm, and my Ethernet cards in the process. Note to those in New England and Mid-Atlantic: NEVER use Verizon DSL!

soulsforsale5s wrote:I'm not saying our health care system is perfect, in fact it needs to have a massive overhaul. But that other post is right, look at the VA system. That's socialized medicine, and it's a disaster. Why? Because government can't run large scale programs efficantly. Again, Medicare, Social Security, Amtrack, the Post Office, NASA...all disasters! Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, government is best when it governs least.


More specifically, he said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." Jefferson lived in a time when the idea of government helping their citizenry rather than oppressing them was nonexistent. Our founding fathers were men and their opinions canbe disagreed. If Jefferson wrote an essay about the evils of toilet paper, does that mean we shouldn't wipe our asses?

soulsforsale5s wrote:Also, to dispose of your examples:
Fire departments, police departments, libraries...these are all run by local government. Socialized medicine would be run by the federal government. Also, the Pentagon (the military) is notoriously inefficent, because it is burdened with so much red tape.


Try dealing with Verizon when your DSL modem fries :)

If I'm not quoting you correctly, you said:

soulsforsale5s wrote:You want to know how well socialized health care would work? Go into the DMV, or the Social Security office, or the Post office, or an Amtrack train. It'll give you an idea of how well the government runs its services.


You didn't specify Federal or local government.

soulsforsale5s wrote:Did you know that our troops in Iraq and Afganistan [sic] have to get permission from the higher-ups to engage the enemy unless they've been engaged first? And by the time permission comes, the enemy is gone. Our soldiers have to be shot at before they can shoot!


Your evidence of that is not from some right-wing blog but from...
His attack, his goading and his quick departure from the discussion...clearly demonstrates that [Mr.Hat_DX27], like Stovepipe_Jam, Killahertz9, TheTowlieConnection and others before him, has no integrity.
dogsbollocks
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:51 am

Re: matt, trey and socialized medicine

Postby dogsbollocks » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:45 pm

Well I'm from England and all I can say is that many people in England have private health coverage, that alone should tell you something about socialized medicine and how the government runs things (usually into the ground). Not to mention that these people are still paying into the NHS government run system, in addition to paying for private health insurance. Its not like they have the option of choosing which one they want to go with because it is taken out of their paycheck along with their taxes. When I had a knee injury at 15, I had the option of waiting 6 months to see a specialist thru the NHS or 1 week thru private healthcare. Oh and somebody tell Michael Moore that there is no such thing as free healthcare, unless those receiving it live off of government handouts and have never paid into the system.
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Re: matt, trey and socialized medicine

Postby HellStrykeXL » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:13 pm

Damn, looks like a whole lot has changed since I last came on here. :shock:

Love the new format. But anyways...

There is no evidence that the trickle down effect works as advertised.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

In theory (I should say "hypothesis") the rich will use the extra money to hire people and contribute through philanthropy. The problem is that this is no guarantee, and is entirely contingent on what these top earners choose to do. The top 1% of earners did not get there by giving away their money. Compare this to targeting tax breaks to the middle and lower classes. Those people spend most of what they earn; they have to in order to live from day to day. This is a lot more of a guarantee than the idea that the rich will hire people or donate to charity.

My question would be, has taxing the rich actually harmed the economy? Ever? Like when Clinton did it? (hint, hint)


I thought me and FFXL made this clear before (I think in the Iraq thread, thank god that one's dead :roll: ), but let me emphasize this again. There are way too many factors that affect economy other than tax cuts for one to know whether or not taxing the rich does, or doesn't work. The graphs presented make it obvious to anyone that even when tax cuts remain the same, growth rates can vary drastically. So it's more then tax cuts that result in changes in growth rate.

Secondly, the site admits that during the 1982 tax cut the growth rate shot up to as high as 7.3% in 1984. If you can think of some other reason the economical growth shot up, let me know, but I'm pretty sure the major tax cut to the rich played the biggest role in this economic boom. In order to counter this admission, they point out that some of the highest points of growth were in the fifties when the tax rate was at 91%. Any historian/economist will tell you that this was simply the result of what is now known as the post-war economic boom. As you can see in this link, not giving the rich tax cuts played no role whatsoever in this surge of growth:

http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/post_war.htm

As for your theory on middle class spending most of what they earn and thus they should get the cuts, keep in mind that the rich invest in what they earn. That's why they got rich in the first place (with a few exceptions). They have to invest in new products, they have to pay their employees, they are the ones who use their money to the fullest.

When it comes to the change in strategy we saw from Clinton, in which the rich didn't get as high cuts, we can see clearly that this had no effect whatsoever on the economy. The only raise we saw during this period was the result of the internet becoming more available to business and that's really about it.

To answer your question no, it hasn't hurt the economy at all.
Last edited by HellStrykeXL on Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Re: matt, trey and socialized medicine

Postby HellStrykeXL » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:17 pm

dogsbollocks wrote:Well I'm from England and all I can say is that many people in England have private health coverage, that alone should tell you something about socialized medicine and how the government runs things (usually into the ground). Not to mention that these people are still paying into the NHS government run system, in addition to paying for private health insurance. Its not like they have the option of choosing which one they want to go with because it is taken out of their paycheck along with their taxes. When I had a knee injury at 15, I had the option of waiting 6 months to see a specialist thru the NHS or 1 week thru private healthcare. Oh and somebody tell Michael Moore that there is no such thing as free healthcare, unless those receiving it live off of government handouts and have never paid into the system.


I hope people take what you said seriously because I remember asking servicemen from both Great Britain and Canada what their healthcare is like. Most of them said they were satisfied with it, but they sure seemed surprised to find out how fast a broken knee gets fixed in the US. I guess competition really does make things more efficient. :)

EDIT: Looks like Big-Will brought up a good point.

Cartman's Top Enemy wrote:landing on the moon

Why aren't we doing that at least once a year these days?


No kidding. There's no competition to do such a thing anymore, so what's the point?
Competition makes a lot of things better. Whether it's the competition between gaming systems, or the competition from car companies. It makes things/services faster, cheaper, and more efficient.
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests