The Great Liberatarian Offer

[neoolong]

Durran, do you know how an insurance company works?

Yes.

Then you would know that a hell of a lot of people can't get it. And that it is already too expensive for them.

[fgalkin]

[quote="TrailerParkJawa
Im not neccesarly (sp?) advocating govt health care. Im disputing your notion that the uninsured are at fault in everycase. You also did not answer what does society do with the uninsured?

Well, there's private charity, for one. And I didn't say the uninsured were at fault at every case - that was not my intent - though I can see how you would deduct that.

[/quote]
When was the last time you gave to charity?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

Wrong, unemployment rates were astronomical, and workplace conditions were horrible. People had to take hazardous jobs for pathetic pay to stay alive.

This has more to do with the economic conditions of previous eras than it does with the government. If only the governments of the middle ages has legislated social programs and minimum wages; clearly, centuries of human misery could have been sidestepped!

It takes time to build factories. It takes time for capital to accumulate and the standard of living to grow.

Only because of the unfair pure lassaiz-faire practices, and unrestricted monopolies.

Horseshit. Utter horseshit. If you believe that the U.S government has at any time practiced laissez-faire, crack an economic history textbook.

So. Obviously, none of the government’s programs concern us. Well, next time your house is on fire, don’t call the fire department. When you send your kids to college, don’t bother applying for federal financial aid, and when you retire, don’t wait for social security. :rolleyes: What a moron.

Firefighting is provided by LOCAL governments, you twat, not the federal government. Furthermore, Harry Browne has never advocated the elimination of firefighting. As for social security; I love this this tactic; the government monopolizes what would normally be a privately provided service and then demands that we be happy with it. Doubtlessly you would have informed the citizens of the U.S.S.R. that they could either enjoy the food so kindly provided by their rulers or shut it.

if all government is as evil as this guy describes, why does he want to becme a part of it so much?

To change it from within. Duh.

When did we have an important Supreme Court case dealing with the power of the federal government. Not since the New Deal.

That's a damned lie. Do your homework.

Great, now all we need is a population growth chart, and we can safely analyze the data.

Government grew by 2/3s during the Reagan years. The population did not.

The guy had never head of the necessary and proper clause.

Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Nope. There will be no minimum wage. Your employer will be free to pay you anything he wants, which will be much less than you’re getting now.

Of course, what would we do without an unemployment-causing minimum wage?

Bullshit. The only reason the government programs were enacted is because the living conditions for the majority of the people were miserable without them. If you want to know what the US looked like then, look at any developing nation right now.

Like I said, it takes a long time for working conditions to improve, for capital to accumulate.

[Joe]

[quote="TrailerParkJawa
Im not neccesarly (sp?) advocating govt health care. Im disputing your notion that the uninsured are at fault in everycase. You also did not answer what does society do with the uninsured?

Well, there's private charity, for one. And I didn't say the uninsured were at fault at every case - that was not my intent - though I can see how you would deduct that.

When was the last time you gave to charity?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin[/quote]

Ah, focus on the man instead of the argument.

In any case, the last time was about eighteen months ago.

It would also be wise to remind you that I am a poor college student, not a wealthy income earner with money to burn - the kinds of people who give to charity.

[fgalkin]

[quote="TrailerParkJawa
Im not neccesarly (sp?) advocating govt health care. Im disputing your notion that the uninsured are at fault in everycase. You also did not answer what does society do with the uninsured?

Well, there's private charity, for one. And I didn't say the uninsured were at fault at every case - that was not my intent - though I can see how you would deduct that.

When was the last time you gave to charity?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Ah, focus on the man instead of the argument.

In any case, the last time was about eighteen months ago.

It would also be wise to remind you that I am a poor college student, not a wealthy income earner with money to burn - the kinds of people who give to charity.[/quote]
May I remind you that most people don't give to charity. Charity will never replace government programs like welfare.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

Well, there's private charity, for one. And I didn't say the uninsured were at fault at every case - that was not my intent - though I can see how you would deduct that.

When was the last time you gave to charity?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Ah, focus on the man instead of the argument.

In any case, the last time was about eighteen months ago.

It would also be wise to remind you that I am a poor college student, not a wealthy income earner with money to burn - the kinds of people who give to charity.

May I remind you that most people don't give to charity. Charity will never replace government programs like welfare.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin[/quote]

And heaven forbid that it does. I can't imagine a charity doing as poor of a job at welfare as the government does.

[fgalkin]

Wrong, unemployment rates were astronomical, and workplace conditions were horrible. People had to take hazardous jobs for pathetic pay to stay alive.

This has more to do with the economic conditions of previous eras than it does with the government. If only the governments of the middle ages has legislated social programs and minimum wages; clearly, centuries of human misery could have been sidestepped!

It takes time to build factories. It takes time for capital to accumulate and the standard of living to grow.

Though US industry was still in the process of development, many industries, such as railroads, meatpacking, and steel were already mostly developed. The fact that they already had the capital, but still continued to practice the same methods shows that the progressive government regulations were necessary. It takes money to set up the various federal comissions.

Only because of the unfair pure lassaiz-faire practices, and unrestricted monopolies.

Horseshit. Utter horseshit. If you believe that the U.S government has at any time practiced laissez-faire, crack an economic history textbook.[/quote]
Although there have not been pure laiseez-faire in this country, the conditions were pretty similar under some Republican presidents. "The business of America is business" was the famous Coolidge quote, IIRC.

So. Obviously, none of the government’s programs concern us. Well, next time your house is on fire, don’t call the fire department. When you send your kids to college, don’t bother applying for federal financial aid, and when you retire, don’t wait for social security. :rolleyes: What a moron.

Firefighting is provided by LOCAL governments, you twat, not the federal government. Furthermore, Harry Browne has never advocated the elimination of firefighting. As for social security; I love this this tactic; the government monopolizes what would normally be a privately provided service and then demands that we be happy with it. Doubtlessly you would have informed the citizens of the U.S.S.R. that they could either enjoy the food so kindly provided by their rulers or shut it.

It seems to me that he is opposed to all taxes. As for social securtiy, you obviously beleive that you would be better off without it.

if all government is as evil as this guy describes, why does he want to becme a part of it so much?

To change it from within. Duh.

And does he not realize that he would not be able to change anything

When did we have an important Supreme Court case dealing with the power of the federal government. Not since the New Deal.

That's a damned lie. Do your homework.

Great, now all we need is a population growth chart, and we can safely analyze the data.

Government grew by 2/3s during the Reagan years. The population did not.

The guy had never head of the necessary and proper clause.

Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Yes. And everything the federal government does falls under the expressed powers and the necessary and proper clause. The tenth amendment does not come into play here.

Nope. There will be no minimum wage. Your employer will be free to pay you anything he wants, which will be much less than you’re getting now.

Of course, what would we do without an unemployment-causing minimum wage?

Need I remind you of the reason for encacting the minimum wage?

Bullshit. The only reason the government programs were enacted is because the living conditions for the majority of the people were miserable without them. If you want to know what the US looked like then, look at any developing nation right now.

Like I said, it takes a long time for working conditions to improve, for capital to accumulate.

Again, by the 1910s, some industries had already formed, yet the working conditions did not improve. Hell, even now some companies have multiple safety violations. Do you really think that worplace safety will stay on the same level once all federal workplace regulations are gone?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stuart Mackey]

The Libertarian "Offer" is to cut or privatize any government service they see as uneccessary or better off in the private sector. In other words, virtually all services save the military. In 1908 the U.S. government consumed 8% of the GNP? Well, in 1908 there was no such thing as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a National Highway System, Federal research institutions such as the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, AFDC, NASA, the CIA, the Federal Reserve... on and on and on. Hell, the FBI wasn't more than a small investigatory branch of the Justice Department in 1908 (when it was created).

What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

Sometimes I wonder if you leave the ivory tower you have created in your own mind. If you think that 19th century economics are the way to go you probably have never grasped the societal impact of those times or the impact it has on today. My own country, by your lights would be a raving socialist hot bed of rampant socialism, yet our way of life is arguably better than that of America.

[Joe]

Though US industry was still in the process of development, many industries, such as railroads, meatpacking, and steel were already mostly developed. The fact that they already had the capital, but still continued to practice the same methods shows that the progressive government regulations were necessary. It takes money to set up the various federal comissions.

As for the alleged mispractices of the meat-packing industry? Propaganda, uncorroborated by evidence. Investigations of the meat-packing industry proved Upton Sinclair's fictional novel, The Jungle, to be inaccurate. As for the steel and railroad industries? Indeed, monopolies created by the government are free to do pretty much whatever they want.

Although there have not been pure laiseez-faire in this country, the conditions were pretty similar under some Republican presidents. "The business of America is business" was the famous Coolidge quote, IIRC.

How does that quote imply laissez-faire? I must be missing something.

It seems to me that he is opposed to all taxes. As for social securtiy, you obviously beleive that you would be better off without it.

Well, no fucking shit I'm against socialism security. Then again, what would we do with an involuntary, government forced-system that yields a return of no more than 2 percent, stifles profitable retirement investment, and probably won't even be around to provide its "benefits" to the people currently footing its bill?

Yes. And everything the federal government does falls under the expressed powers and the necessary and proper clause. The tenth amendment does not come into play here.

The necessary and proper clause is vague. The Tenth Amendment, while mostly ignored (like the 2nd Amendment; the courts only seemed to be interested in preserving the parts of the Bill of Rights that are not inconvenient for the ambitions of the government), very clearly states that the federal government can't do anything specifically delegated to it, in Article I and elsewhere within the Constitution framework.

The necessary and proper clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation necessary for the execution of its enumerated powers, not a blank check to pass legislation concerning every conceivable activity that goes on within the United States.

Need I remind you of the reason for encacting the minimum wage?

To buy votes and make politicians feel good about themselves?

The minimum wage causes unemployment among the poorest workers, as a quick appeal to the law of demand will prove.

Again, by the 1910s, some industries had already formed, yet the working conditions did not improve. Hell, even now some companies have multiple safety violations. Do you really think that worplace safety will stay on the same level once all federal workplace regulations are gone?

Have you never heard of civil law? Torts?

Companies will have incentives to keep their factories safe; the most skilled workers will prefer factories where the working conditions are safe. Not to mention there is plenty of government intervention into the affairs of factory owners - a LOT of it - and there is still workplace hazard.

And there is an opportunity cost to increased safety. Like higher wages for workers.

[Stuart Mackey]

Don't have kids and get a job. Live a frugal lifestyle.

That doesn't help anyone deal with sudden reverses in fortune - for example, I got a concussion last year, and if I had no insurance it would have cost me over $6,000 in hospital fees, x-ray costs, and even the ride in an ambulance (oddly enough, the ambulance ride was supposed to cost over $2,000 alone, despite the fact that I'm about three blocks from the hospital). Few people can handle that sort of financial hit all at once, no matter how frugal they live. Keep in mind that injury or illness not only costs money but also prevents people from working, creating a higher effective cost and making it harder to meet rising medical expenses.

All of this can be prevented with only a simple national minimum standard for health care. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is with the medical industry today, but that can be circumvented.

You should live in NZ, your accident would have been treated for free. But then NZ has no cost heath care regardless of income.

[fgalkin]

Oh sure, private corporations die from the wish of building kilometers long particle beam accelerators for studying physic,only an hardcore socialist like me would deny that.

Well, I grant that such an item might not be constructed. However, for things like space exploration - That could be handled by the military. Space should have been militarized a long time ago, and would have been, were it not for treaties with the USSR.

Once space is militarized and the refined technology becomes available to the civilian field, private companies can exploit it with relative ease.

As for particle beam accelerators, they might have similiar applications. Or the state governments could fund them; California has a GDP the size of France's, and would have a bigger one without loony socialist-style economics.

(Though I acknowledge that the States have a right to do what they want with their budgets. I only really want a libertarian Federal government. I think the States should be close to libertarian, but it is up to the voters in the invidual States. For my State, I would not necessarily be opposed to limited additional services.)

Ever heard of public goods? Tehy must be handled by the government, sicne private enterprise cannot regulate their usage, and, thus, has no incentive to produce them. That is why we need the government

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

The Libertarian "Offer" is to cut or privatize any government service they see as uneccessary or better off in the private sector. In other words, virtually all services save the military. In 1908 the U.S. government consumed 8% of the GNP? Well, in 1908 there was no such thing as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a National Highway System, Federal research institutions such as the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, AFDC, NASA, the CIA, the Federal Reserve... on and on and on. Hell, the FBI wasn't more than a small investigatory branch of the Justice Department in 1908 (when it was created).

What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

Sometimes I wonder if you leave the ivory tower you have created in your own mind. If you think that 19th century economics are the way to go you probably have never grasped the societal impact of those times or the impact it has on today. My own country, by your lights would be a raving socialist hot bed of rampant socialism, yet our way of life is arguably better than that of America.

Strong words from a guy whose country has a GDP-per-capita of only $17,000.

[Stuart Mackey]

What, exactly, have any of these things done for us? Short of the CDC and the CIA I see little need for any of that, and we surely don't need the FBI. Though I suppose a legitimate case can be argued for funding highways; the rest, however, is socialism, and an unnecessary drain on the government, like all socialist ideals.

Sometimes I wonder if you leave the ivory tower you have created in your own mind. If you think that 19th century economics are the way to go you probably have never grasped the societal impact of those times or the impact it has on today. My own country, by your lights would be a raving socialist hot bed of rampant socialism, yet our way of life is arguably better than that of America.

Strong words from a guy whose country has a GDP-per-capita of only $17,000.

Strong words from aguy whos nation has people who involunterily live on the street. Where you need insurance for emergency heath care and who's government practices deficit spending, and your education system allows for the teaching of crationism as fact.
Not of course that posting the per-capita income means diddle squat, you want to also post that the average taxable income is 24,864 and the the cost of living is signifiacantly lower than the US? probably not, that would harm your argument.

[fgalkin]

Though US industry was still in the process of development, many industries, such as railroads, meatpacking, and steel were already mostly developed. The fact that they already had the capital, but still continued to practice the same methods shows that the progressive government regulations were necessary. It takes money to set up the various federal comissions.

As for the alleged mispractices of the meat-packing industry? Propaganda, uncorroborated by evidence. Investigations of the meat-packing industry proved Upton Sinclair's fictional novel, The Jungle, to be inaccurate. As for the steel and railroad industries? Indeed, monopolies created by the government are free to do pretty much whatever they want.

Please tell me the results of those investigations, then. As for the railroad monopolies, they were not under government control at that time.

Although there have not been pure laiseez-faire in this country, the conditions were pretty similar under some Republican presidents. "The business of America is business" was the famous Coolidge quote, IIRC.

How does that quote imply laissez-faire? I must be missing something.

Coolidge advocated business without government intervetnion. That's laissez-faire.

It seems to me that he is opposed to all taxes. As for social securtiy, you obviously beleive that you would be better off without it.

Well, no fucking shit I'm against socialism security. Then again, what would we do with an involuntary, government forced-system that yields a return of no more than 2 percent, stifles profitable retirement investment, and probably won't even be around to provide its "benefits" to the people currently footing its bill?

The problem is that most people don't know jack shit about the stock market. Do you realize how many people lost their money when the dot com bubble burst. They would lose their retirement savings if it weren't for social security.

Yes. And everything the federal government does falls under the expressed powers and the necessary and proper clause. The tenth amendment does not come into play here.

The necessary and proper clause is vague. The Tenth Amendment, while mostly ignored (like the 2nd Amendment; the courts only seemed to be interested in preserving the parts of the Bill of Rights that are not inconvenient for the ambitions of the government), very clearly states that the federal government can't do anything specifically delegated to it, in Article I and elsewhere within the Constitution framework.

Guess what. Everything the government does today falss under the enumertaed powers.

The necessary and proper clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation necessary for the execution of its enumerated powers, not a blank check to pass legislation concerning every conceivable activity that goes on within the United States.

Name me one function of the federal government that is not under one of the enumerated powers.

Need I remind you of the reason for encacting the minimum wage?

To buy votes and make politicians feel good about themselves?

To correct the unfair pay standards of big business.

The minimum wage causes unemployment among the poorest workers, as a quick appeal to the law of demand will prove.

If there had been no minimum wage, we'd all be getting what the illegal immigrants in sweatshops are getting.

Again, by the 1910s, some industries had already formed, yet the working conditions did not improve. Hell, even now some companies have multiple safety violations. Do you really think that worplace safety will stay on the same level once all federal workplace regulations are gone?

Have you never heard of civil law? Torts?

Companies will have incentives to keep their factories safe; the most skilled workers will prefer factories where the working conditions are safe. Not to mention there is plenty of government intervention into the affairs of factory owners - a LOT of it - and there is still workplace hazard.

And there is an opportunity cost to increased safety. Like higher wages for workers.

True, but the point is, that if there had been no government intervention, there would be even more violations.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Joe]

Please tell me the results of those investigations, then. As for the railroad monopolies, they were not under government control at that time.

Teddy Roosevelt refused to release the results of the investigation for quite some time; however, Upton Sinclair visited the White House in 1906 and Roosevelt informed him that he found nothing incriminating in the reports.

As for the railroad? No, not government controlled, but the government aided their consolodiation greatly through licenses, franchises, and increased barriers to entry.

Coolidge advocated business without government intervetnion. That's laissez-faire.

That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. government was not practicing laissez-faire at the time. Coolidge himself was a minimalist in government intervention, however.

Guess what. Everything the government does today falss under the enumertaed powers.

Heh, heh, heh...

Name me one function of the federal government that is not under one of the enumerated powers.

Regulating congressional campaigns. Social Security. What is collectively known as "welfare." Pretty much every alphabet soup agency.

To correct the unfair pay standards of big business.

Paying the market wage for unskilled labor and acting in accordance with the law of demand? A price floor set above the market wage causes unemployment. Economic FACT.

If there had been no minimum wage, we'd all be getting what the illegal immigrants in sweatshops are getting.

Wrong. The equilibrium wage for the average unskilled worker (primarily teenagers) is higher than that.

True, but the point is, that if there had been no government intervention, there would be even more violations.

No, workers could have more CHOICES and freely form contracts with employers. For example, a worker in search of higher-than-equilibrium wages could work at a factory with lower safety standards, whereas a worker in search of great safety standards could work in a lower-paying factory.

[Stuart Mackey]

No, workers could have more CHOICES and freely form contracts with employers. For example, a worker in search of higher-than-equilibrium wages could work at a factory with lower safety standards, whereas a worker in search of great safety standards could work in a lower-paying factory.

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

[Joe]

No, workers could have more CHOICES and freely form contracts with employers. For example, a worker in search of higher-than-equilibrium wages could work at a factory with lower safety standards, whereas a worker in search of great safety standards could work in a lower-paying factory.

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

Dropping the minimum wage, you mean?

[Stuart Mackey]

No, workers could have more CHOICES and freely form contracts with employers. For example, a worker in search of higher-than-equilibrium wages could work at a factory with lower safety standards, whereas a worker in search of great safety standards could work in a lower-paying factory.

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

Dropping the minimum wage, you mean?

No, I am talking about employers dropping wages, and of course that NZ tried your wee libertarian ideas and they failed. We have a minimum wage here and that is the only thing that makes sure that people can put food on the table in some areas.

[Joe]

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

Dropping the minimum wage, you mean?

No, I am talking about employers dropping wages, and of course that NZ tried your wee libertarian ideas and they failed. We have a minimum wage here and that is the only thing that makes sure that people can put food on the table in some areas.

Hmm, well, I don't live in New Zealand and I don't know if the laws of demand just don't apply there or something, but cliometric analysis of historical data shows that minimum wages set above the market wage for unskilled labor do cause unemployment. This is an observable phenomenon in America; unemployment is highest among unskilled teenage kids looking for a job, the group most likely to make low wages.

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

[TrailerParkJawa]

This is an observable phenomenon in America; unemployment is highest among unskilled teenage kids looking for a job, the group most likely to make low wages.

I dont know too many teens who are wanting for a job, unless they live in a severly depressed area.

[Joe]

This is an observable phenomenon in America; unemployment is highest among unskilled teenage kids looking for a job, the group most likely to make low wages.

I dont know too many teens who are wanting for a job, unless they live in a severly depressed area.

Well, when discussing unemployment, you only discuss the labor force. A person who does not have a job and does not want one is not considered unemployed; he is not a part of the labor force.

Teenagers who do not want a job are not part of the labor force; however, all teenagers who are either employed or actively seeking work are considered part of the labor force. Among this group of teenagers, unemployment is considerably higher than the average, which is usually around five percent.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

It's really very simple. I'd like to see a reference to when New Zealand instituted Chicago Economics; considering your current state, that must have been a long time ago, or else it wasn't that at all, but like a few modest measures that were nothing like the drastic matters being proposed here.

[Stuart Mackey]

Dropping the minimum wage, you mean?

No, I am talking about employers dropping wages, and of course that NZ tried your wee libertarian ideas and they failed. We have a minimum wage here and that is the only thing that makes sure that people can put food on the table in some areas.

Hmm, well, I don't live in New Zealand and I don't know if the laws of demand just don't apply there or something, but cliometric analysis of historical data shows that minimum wages set above the market wage for unskilled labor do cause unemployment. This is an observable phenomenon in America; unemployment is highest among unskilled teenage kids looking for a job, the group most likely to make low wages.

The trick is that a minimum wage must be the minimum to feed and house a person/ family. Employers have not, historicaly, shown themselfs to pay a living wage, therefor our governments have set a minimum wage so that every one has the oppertunity to partisipate in society, or at least house and feed themselfs. This policy also has the benifit of stopping people depending to much on government subsidies.

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

And you would be wrong, fortunatly a stop was put to it befor too much damage was done.

[Stuart Mackey]

*Sigh* I note that you are still at uni and quite frankly I used to think along similar lines. Wait till you actually get out into the work force for a few years before regurgitating right wing economic theory.
New Zealand tried what you advocate and it did not work, wages dropped accross the board and unemployment went up, where you get the idea that this stuff would work is beyoned me.

It's really very simple. I'd like to see a reference to when New Zealand instituted Chicago Economics; considering your current state, that must have been a long time ago, or else it wasn't that at all, but like a few modest measures that were nothing like the drastic matters being proposed here.

I said it was tried, not implimented. Our former Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson wanted to do such a thing, and the ACT party still does.
Fact remains that it did not work and we are better of for it. We have what you would regard as a socialist government and our economy is better now than it has been in 16, or more, years.

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't have kids and get a job. Live a frugal lifestyle.

That doesn't help anyone deal with sudden reverses in fortune - for example, I got a concussion last year, and if I had no insurance it would have cost me over $6,000 in hospital fees, x-ray costs, and even the ride in an ambulance (oddly enough, the ambulance ride was supposed to cost over $2,000 alone, despite the fact that I'm about three blocks from the hospital). Few people can handle that sort of financial hit all at once, no matter how frugal they live. Keep in mind that injury or illness not only costs money but also prevents people from working, creating a higher effective cost and making it harder to meet rising medical expenses.

All of this can be prevented with only a simple national minimum standard for health care. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is with the medical industry today, but that can be circumvented.

You should live in NZ, your accident would have been treated for free. But then NZ has no cost heath care regardless of income.

Your fooling yourself if you really think its free.