120 replies to this topic

[maxwatt]

Indeed, I agree with libertarian philosophy, but I can't think of a way to make it a stable situation either.

I personally think the libertarian system only really works well where you have low population densities. It seems that as the amount of space per person constricts, the number of rules necessary to keep society functioning increases. This doesn't bode well for libertarianism over the next 100 years.

Bingo. Among primates brain size is correlated to the size of the group in which that primate lives. What I've read on the subject suggests that the upper limit for social groups in chimps is perhaps 40, for humans it is about 400. I suspect this means the libertarian ideal can only be realized in groups of less than 400 individuals. The development of social structures to organize groups of individuals on a larger scale is a theme of history.


Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates
RIM Dunbar - Journal of Human Evolution, 1992 - Elsevier
Two general kinds of theory (one ecological and one social) have been advanced
to explain the fact that primates have larger brains and greater congnitive
abilities than other animals. Data on neocortex volume, group size and a ...

[lunarsolarpower]

Bingo. Among primates brain size is correlated to the size of the group in which that primate lives. What I've read on the subject suggests that the upper limit for social groups in chimps is perhaps 40, for humans it is about 400. I suspect this means the libertarian ideal can only be realized in groups of less than 400 individuals. The development of social structures to organize groups of individuals on a larger scale is a theme of history.

More informally this is known as the monkeysphere. I wish urban planners would incorporate it into their efforts. I think the ideal city would be formed of clusters containing less than 1000 inhabitants who would interact regularly with the other members while occasionally leaving the cluster to engage in larger spheres. I base this premise on my time enrolled at a college of ~800 students. It was possible to personally know half the students and recognize literally everyone. So long as you get along with everyone it's pretty neat. Should your values change to where you no longer fit in, there should be a new cluster for you to move to.

[RighteousReason]

Look, it's obvious you have learned everything you know about capitalism from hateful left-wing propaganda.

Must be if I disagree with you! Is the only thing the right can do is flip arguments?

Do you really believe the rich are rich because they deserve to be? Come on, what about inheritance, luck, going to a good school that have the right networks (paid for by your parents), these play a far greater part, you must see this. These things have nothing to do with skill, only circumstance. The poor remain poor because they are only paid enough to live, and that is all. a tiny fraction of lucky people make it through, but most don't however talented, but that's ok because then we can create the 'dream', while the rich at the top laugh away as they don't even have to convince people anymore, crazy ah...

Yeah I think you have made it clear that you are full of hatred and envy of the rich. You are willing to believe anything other than that they worked hard, dug down deep inside themselves, and made something out of nothing in a free market economy that allows them to get wealthy this way, just like every rich person I have ever known has done- other than the Hollywood celebrities you probably worship, as wealth envy and celebrity worship tend to go hand in hand, which is odd that you hate their wealth but worship their celebrity- it is probably because they are just as full of self-hatred as you are which is why you admire them so much.

Edited by RighteousReason, 25 October 2009 - 01:08 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

I'm telling it like I see it, you're the one that keeps bringing hate into this, not me. Long as your friends supposedly worked hard to make their money, lets forget about the bigger picture though, and see where the majority got their money, ah? Lets just make personal attacks with the old 'envy' chestnut. I'm envious of the rich as I'm envious of the guy that reaks into my house and steals my stuff, lets put it that way... I find your comments pretty insulting to the billions around the world who work there asses off to provide for their families and never make that much money, honestly what planet do you live on that you can make such ridiculous comments that only the rich work hard the poor don't. I don't know know were to start with what's wrong with that, other then what I have already said. But thankfully I think most people will see the ludicrousness of such a statement so all is fine...

Edited by captainbeefheart, 25 October 2009 - 02:18 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

I worship hollywood celebrities? When did I say that, you are one strange cookie my friend, why would I worship them? Is this some sort of comment about liberals or something? I'm not a liberal btw, I'm a marxist, big difference...

[RighteousReason]

honestly what planet do you live on that you can make such ridiculous comments that only the rich work hard the poor don't. I don't know know were to start with what's wrong with that, other then what I have already said. But thankfully I think most people will see the ludicrousness of such a statement so all is fine...

If you remember what this conversation was about (which you obviously don't),

Anyway to answer your question more directly as if you weren't going down that line of insanity, no of course a truly free market would not reproduce "the exact same bucrascy, restrictions of freedoms and failure that you see in the state". That's because if people didn't like what the market leaders provided, they would simply find a competitor, and if there weren't any good competitors, they would simply create one.

We are talking about a truly free market, or at least something close to that like in the US or other Western nations. I'm not talking about the various communist/socialist governments or tyrannical dictatorships or whatever corrupt thug- or theo- cracies that dominate most of this planet.

I'm a marxist, big difference...

At least you own up to it

Edited by RighteousReason, 25 October 2009 - 02:25 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

If you remember what this conversation was about (which you obviously don't),

so inheritance and private education wouldn't exist in a pure free market?

[RighteousReason]

If you remember what this conversation was about (which you obviously don't),

so inheritance and private education wouldn't exist in a pure free market?

Any legitimate statistics you find regarding the US and other free economies, you will see that virtually all wealthy people (>90%) achieved the vast majority of their wealth through their own hard work. You may also be interested in ignoring or twisting the fact that they donate huge amounts of money and do indeed redistribute their wealth to the poor and needy by their own voluntary will.

Edited by RighteousReason, 25 October 2009 - 02:33 PM.

[RighteousReason]

At least you own up to it

ha ha, good lord, what a scary individual you are.

I don't know how you interpreted my response, but I am only saying that there are millions of marxist Americans who for some reason have a very hard time openly admitting it. How do you think the communist/marxist fraud Obama got elected?

[captainbeefheart]

Any legitimate statistics you find regarding the US and other free economies, you will see that virtually all wealthy people (>90%) achieved the vast majority of their wealth through their own hard work.

care to show them? Define what you mean by hard work, are we talking about 'rags to riches' if so you're clearly wrong. Even then it's questionable.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 25 October 2009 - 02:38 PM.

[captainbeefheart]

Ha ha, body swerve, I have, I can't find any, if you said the stats are there, why is it so hard to produce them? Come on, you are a bit ridiculous, and clearly wrong. I'm reminded of a conversation I over heard at SENS actually some scientist guys was talking about how the business guys seem to make all the money of their discoveries, didn't seem fair...

[JLL]

Indeed, I agree with libertarian philosophy, but I can't think of a way to make it a stable situation either.

I personally think the libertarian system only really works well where you have low population densities. It seems that as the amount of space per person constricts, the number of rules necessary to keep society functioning increases. This doesn't bode well for libertarianism over the next 100 years.

Bingo. Among primates brain size is correlated to the size of the group in which that primate lives. What I've read on the subject suggests that the upper limit for social groups in chimps is perhaps 40, for humans it is about 400. I suspect this means the libertarian ideal can only be realized in groups of less than 400 individuals. The development of social structures to organize groups of individuals on a larger scale is a theme of history.

I would argue the contrary - that the more population size increases, the less feasible any form of government regulation is.

When you have a deserted island with 5 people, putting someone in charge and letting that person give orders as to who shall produce which goods and how much goods shall cost may work. But do the same with 20 million people and you have a disaster.

The more complex the matrix of interactions, the less it can be regulated by a centralized government in a way that does not decrease overall wealth. Naturally arising regulation is a different matter.

I kind of see this as metaphor for intelligent design vs. evolution -- creationists say that the world is so complex it obviously requires a creator. I say the world is so complex it obviously couldn't have been created.

As for the brain size thing, why would it only apply to libertarianism? As I recall, the paper you're referring to only stated that we can keep track of about 400 individuals, and everyone else to our primal brain is something of a 'stranger'. I don't really see this as relevant for the world today. We don't live in villages of under 400 people; we live in huge cities. We don't have to know everyone personally; all we have to do is get along with them. And the reason we get along with other people is not because the government succesfully forces us to behave; the reason we get along is because we want to get along.

Edited by JLL, 25 October 2009 - 05:09 PM.

[forever freedom]

I worship hollywood celebrities? When did I say that, you are one strange cookie my friend, why would I worship them? Is this some sort of comment about liberals or something? I'm not a liberal btw, I'm a marxist, big difference...

You know, marxists are great at pointing flaws with everything yet they propose nothing clear. What economic system would you propose and why would it be better than capitalism?

Edited by forever freedom, 25 October 2009 - 05:08 PM.

[maxwatt]

I worship hollywood celebrities? When did I say that, you are one strange cookie my friend, why would I worship them? Is this some sort of comment about liberals or something? I'm not a liberal btw, I'm a marxist, big difference...

You know, marxists are great at pointing flaws with everything yet they propose nothing clear. What economic system would you propose and why would it be better than capitalism?

I am curious what captainbeefheart may answer. For some comments on what measures some Marxists might favor, you could start with Michael Parenti.

http://www.countercu...enti260507.htm
http://michaelparenti.org/

Much of his writing is criticism of what is wrong with global capitalism, but there is an implicit endorsement of certain forms of social organization and an endorsement of the have-nots versus those who have unjustly seized resources. Not that I am advocating these viewpoints, but I think it is necessary to understand them, and the criticisms of global capitalism are unhappily accurate.

I would argue the contrary - that the more population size increases, the less feasible any form of government regulation is.

That is what much of human history for the past 8000 years has been about; how to organize into larger groups. Tribalism, religion, Pharos, kingdoms, kings of kings, empires. despotisms, tyrannies, republics, democracies not necessarily in any particular order of development or ranking. The first kingdoms and empires in recorded history were basically gangs, sometimes criminal by our standards, extending their reach by conquest. Though our brains may not be able to deal directly with a social group larger than about 400 individuals, organizing such groups on a larger scale has no such limit. It will happen, if only in self-defense against other organized groups. Feasibility is not the issue.

[lunarsolarpower]

I would argue the contrary - that the more population size increases, the less feasible any form of government regulation is.

When you have a deserted island with 5 people, putting someone in charge and letting that person give orders as to who shall produce which goods and how much goods shall cost may work. But do the same with 20 million people and you have a disaster.

The more complex the matrix of interactions, the less it can be regulated by a centralized government in a way that does not decrease overall wealth. Naturally arising regulation is a different matter.

I'm not saying that a dense population requires a command economy. Let's take your example of two islands - one with 5 inhabitants and the other with 20,000,000. On Wilderness Island there likely won't need to be any rules more complex than "my right to extend my fist ends where it connects with your nose" and "don't take things that aren't yours". There might come to be a few more rules depending on the interaction of the five inhabitants but if someone has enough problem with the others and the island is large enough they can just move to the other side and do as they please.

Now let's look at Metropolis Island with 20,000,000 inhabitants. Suddenly you need to have systems for education, health care, national defense, police, fire, health codes, environmental waste disposal, land use/zoning, parks, wildernesses, libraries/archives, justice, research, etc., etc.

Where before if a rogue individual was making life unpleasant for everyone you could just send them to their own side of the island you now have communities covering most of the inhabitable land. Where before lighting a fire where ever you felt like was perfectly fine, now it will concern and possibly endanger someone else. Where health care used to be tying a couple splints around someone's broken leg and giving them some herbs when they got sick, you now have to deliberate on if the employer, government, individual or hospital should pay for care.

The most striking example where systems are needed is where people are unable to function at acceptable levels either on their own or with the assistance of family members. People who have addictions, PTSD, mental illness, or who abuse their children require the active intervention of society.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 26 October 2009 - 06:48 AM.

[captainbeefheart]

You know, marxists are great at pointing flaws with everything yet they propose nothing clear. What economic system would you propose and why would it be better than capitalism?

You're right, in that, Marxists spend a lot of time criticising the system we live in. This is the stage in society we're at, not that people haven't tried to map out what a socialist society would be like. Trotsky wrote a lot about how to organise a socialist society, some I believe to be right, some wrong. Marx, of course, didn't as much as others but the difference was that Marx lived in a time, much like this one in fact, where there were no signs of any sort of socialist revolution. The class consciousness was so low that getting people to understand they were being exploited when the life they had was all they had ever known was more important, working 16 hour days with no weekends and such like, from childhood. So the idea in Marxian economics is to mostly understand the exploitive nature of the Capitalist system in order to better understand ways to defeat it.

It's difficult to know what a real socialist society would look like (fully), as it's never existed. Ultimately we are speaking about methods to remove what causes the problems in society, which is the class system.

Also you have to understand the conciseness of people at that time to know what demands should be made, which is the transitional program. For instance shouting about a revolution is pretty pointless as marxism is routed in democracy and if the majority of people are not class consciousness enough then this is a pointless.

BUT with all that said, there are demands I'd make for the here and now (they might not create a fully socialist, classless system but are a step in the right direction). Which would be to bring the top 100 companies in each country under public ownership, a liveable minim wage, going up to £7 an hour, to then go to £9 which would move up to the average earning, open the books of companies and banks, pubic ownership of transport systems, democratic running of work places by workers, abolition of the monarchy (something just for some of us in europe ), poltians should only earn and average workers wage, no unemployment, sharing out the work with a 35 hour working week with no loss in earning. In Capitalism unemployment always exists, it's part of the system because with a surplus of labour it means you can drive down wages. So like we see, esspially now, the people that do have jobs are worked to the bone while we have mass unemployment, it's a silly way to run things. Those are a few examples I think of making life better off the top of my head anyway.

Of course ultimately you'd need to change the entire structures of society, the structure of the state is all very intertwined with authority, the old ways, business etc. I believe in democratically running society, which would decide were resources should go, I don't think the 'invisible hand of the free market' has shown to be that good at that. This would give accountability and an easy way to strip people of power if they aren't doing a good job, work places would be democratically run by workers, when people feel they have reasonability and an important role to play rather then just being a cog then they enjoy work and do a much better job.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 26 October 2009 - 08:49 AM.

[fatboy]

More informally this is known as the monkeysphere.

Some of us still call it the ThunderDrome. But we are nerds.

[medicineman]

I laugh at the right wing idiots who equate socialism with theft... Nozick is dead, and so are his ideas.... Stop spreading your neoliberal BS on the boards.. A socialist system is MORE FREE THAN your free market system... In the free market, money equals freedom... Your free market damns 95% of the American population to the gutters, cuz 5% own 95% of the resources.... Your free market system is based on exploitation of the third world and the less fortunate individuals in your country.

neo-keynesian economics is going mainstream, unfortunate news for you Von Mises hacks.. What about the soviet union??? Here is a bit of history I got from a fellow from another forum:

"Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.'

[medicineman]

This is from Orwell during the Spanish Revolution:

Along with the fight against fascism was a profound anarchist revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

[medicineman]

"Any legitimate statistics you find regarding the US and other free economies, you will see that virtually all wealthy people (>90%) achieved the vast majority of their wealth through their own hard work..."


Is that actually a way of convincing me of something? Ok ok, here is one,,, Any legitimate statistics show that virtually all left handed females prefer lemon cakes over chocolate cakes.....

Have you heard of moral luck???? inheritance??? coercion?? Give me a break......

[.fonclea.]

there is nothing "nazi" in Universal health care, just have a look in norway, sweden, france, germany or canada....
I don't mind paying for it because i know i often need it: this system allow me to buy me new glasses every year, saved my sister from cancer ect...And my gouvernement doesn't have a full control of it.... pffffff

You are so selfish in US. ;o and why are you allways refering to socialism when your gouvernment propose you something you are against ??????

Edited by .fonclea., 20 November 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[tunt01]

there is nothing "nazi" in Universal health care, just have a look in norway, sweden, france, germany or canada....
I don't mind paying for it because i know i often need it: this system allow me to buy me new glasses every year, saved my sister from cancer ect...And my gouvernement doesn't have a full control of it.... pffffff

You are so selfish in US. ;o and why are you allways refering to socialism when your gouvernment propose you something you are against ??????

by definition it is a socialist policy.

we already have medicare for seniors, and s-chip for children. the US is $60 trillion dollars in debt through future funding obligations of healthcare for seniors and social security payment programs. country cannot afford.

things cost money. that money has to come from somewhere... it's not just a 'nice free thing' the government want to give everyone.

[.fonclea.]

thanks for your response


Nothing's free in my healthcare: i have a third of it of the budget in charge + my company (sometime) + the universal healthcare.
For small cure and medecin it's your, but giving birth or any heavy operation it's "la secu".
You all may see first in detail in sweden or france and see what can work in your contry but i believe you can't keep going with 9 millions of people without health insurrance. This "senior" were also workers befor, they deserve it.

The english NHS has been organised by Margareth Thatcher, do you really thing she was a socialist


when what's wrong of beeing a socialist afterall ?

Edited by .fonclea., 21 November 2009 - 08:39 AM.

[maxwatt]

there is nothing "nazi" in Universal health care, just have a look in norway, sweden, france, germany or canada....
I don't mind paying for it because i know i often need it: this system allow me to buy me new glasses every year, saved my sister from cancer ect...And my gouvernement doesn't have a full control of it.... pffffff

You are so selfish in US. ;o and why are you allways refering to socialism when your gouvernment propose you something you are against ??????

by definition it is a socialist policy.

we already have medicare for seniors, and s-chip for children. the US is $60 trillion dollars in debt through future funding obligations of healthcare for seniors and social security payment programs. country cannot afford.

things cost money. that money has to come from somewhere... it's not just a 'nice free thing' the government want to give everyone.

The money comes from somewhere whether it is public or private. It is the inequity and mean-spiritedness of the current system that is striking. Either everyone pays according to his own immediate need, which is disastrous if calamity strikes a low-wage person, or even the middle class with a typical policy insurance policy. OR we somehow spread the cost, so everyone is paying a piece of the total cost. It is shameful that the issue has been politicized along party lines. And unnecessary.

Even if a government run system is against one's religious principles, it is not necessary to having a better system. Every industrial nation in the world has a better system than the US. The rational thing to do would be to copy one of them instead of reinventing the wheel. For instance, Switzerland provides a high level of health care to all its citizens with no "public option", it is all done through private companies, and if I am not mistaken, Australia does this too. In Switzerland, though, the companies are highly regulated as to what they must offer, and profits are limited for basic, government defined and mandated health care. Where they make their money is on extras, like covering a private room.

[TheFountain]

As far as I am concerned the american populace already pays for healthcare 10 times over with how god damned much we are taxed. Sales tax, property tax, bridge toll tax, food tax, and where is it all going? Seriously healthcare was paid for a long time ago. What they are debating about now is what they are going to do with the money most americans have already spent on it.

[TheFountain]

there is nothing "nazi" in Universal health care,

I know. In my original post I was pretending to be as stupid as some americans quite obviously are.

[KalaBeth]

As far as I am concerned the american populace already pays for healthcare 10 times over with how god damned much we are taxed. Sales tax, property tax, bridge toll tax, food tax, and where is it all going? Seriously healthcare was paid for a long time ago. What they are debating about now is what they are going to do with the money most americans have already spent on it.

Doesn't work that way. The money is spent. Gone. By-bye.

Just like you can't say "well dammit, I've been spending $600 a month on rent and credit card interest, where the heck is my new house? I mean, I paid for it!"
No. We paid for providing the core of the defensive aegis over the whole of the western world for the last sixty-odd years, we paid for Great Society "war on poverty" programs for the last fifty-odd years, and we've been paying for a steadily growing number of federal departments with their attendant personnel and retirement costs for the last seventy-odd years at least. And we've promised 'free' education to everyone, 'free' retirement supplementation to everyone, and 'free' medical coverage and prescription help to the less well off (which in practice means "everyone who can hide their assets") already.

The Money Spent. is Gone. Forever.

Now, the one ray of hope in all that is that the biggest growing chunk - Social Security - might well be obsoleted and be able to be phased out if and when SENS plays out. Likewise the spendy spendy last-days-of-life care - getting those two HUGE problems off the table just might make the rest of the budgetary problems if not easily solvable, at least not overwhelmingly crushing.

Honestly, I don't see SENS or anything like it maturing fast enough to help though.

Rather, I suspect we'll just keep kicking the can down the road until no one will lend us any more money, the budget crashes, and everyone is pointing fingers at each other saying "it's your fault for spending so much on your favorite programs. We should have only spent it on mine."

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

The english NHS has been organised by Margaret h Thatcher, do you really thing she was a socialist

Logical fallacy. A given policy is or is not socialist, regardless of who implements it.
Wage and price controls were implemented by Nixon. That a guy ostensibly on the "right" did it doesn't mean they weren't wage and price controls. And it doesn't mean they didn't create shortages. Economic laws are just like any other laws of nature - they don't care who pulls the trigger. They just are.

[captainbeefheart]

The english NHS has been organised by Margaret h Thatcher, do you really thing she was a socialist

I might be taking this out of context so, forgive me if so as I have only skimmed the replies but I noticed this and I don't understand where it's come from. Thatcher didn't come up with the NHS. She would have destroyed it if the will of the people weren't so strong to keep it. She did a lot to try and destroy it. Cutting funding, privatising aspects of it, etc. But she certainly didn't come up with it. That was won by the people just after WW2. When the majority demanded it. Even with all the damage inflicted on it over the decades, from the capitalist media, from governments, etc it remains very popular, pretty effiant even now considering all the private elements that have creeped in, increasing burcrascy and such like. Massive room for improvement, but I sure know where I wana be if/when I get sick...

With that said I wouldn't call the NHS a socialist health care system, a socialist health care system would be far better. It still operates within the free market of sorts, the drug companies are private for instance, but it is free at point of entry and mostly paid for by tax. You have to pay for prescriptions, well some do, most people don't, there £7.10 each whatever you get, although only in England. Wales and Scotland get free for everyone, not sure why they get that but not us!? Dental is subsided at a flat fee, same with opticians, but both are free under a certain wage or if you're on benefits. Don't think anything else has a fee for the time being although many right wing think tanks are trying to push the idea of top ups like you get in France (with the looming baby boomer bubble) and a lot of other countries, would be a great shame I think if that happened, the UK system is the most comprehensive in the world.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 26 November 2009 - 12:01 PM.

[platypus]

there is nothing "nazi" in Universal health care, just have a look in norway, sweden, france, germany or canada....
I don't mind paying for it because i know i often need it: this system allow me to buy me new glasses every year, saved my sister from cancer ect...And my gouvernement doesn't have a full control of it.... pffffff

You are so selfish in US. ;o and why are you allways refering to socialism when your gouvernment propose you something you are against ??????

by definition it is a socialist policy.

And you just cannot have any socialist policies can you?

things cost money. that money has to come from somewhere... it's not just a 'nice free thing' the government want to give everyone.

So why not offer a goverment not-for-profit insurance-scheme that can compete with the others available in the marketplace?

[platypus]

As far as I am concerned the american populace already pays for healthcare 10 times over with how god damned much we are taxed. Sales tax, property tax, bridge toll tax, food tax, and where is it all going? Seriously healthcare was paid for a long time ago. What they are debating about now is what they are going to do with the money most americans have already spent on it.

Maybe you can't afford to spend so much on defence? Do you have politicians with the balls to suggest large cuts to your military budgets or is that a political suicide?