I just don't get it....

[EmperorSolo51]

As you all know I am a New Hampshirite and I come from a small town in southern New Hampshire that went for Bush by 6 votes. As you all know I am also a Republican.

But that's not why a created this thread. The reason I made this thread is because I am perplexed. I am perplexed becuase Howard Dean is very popular among New Hampshirites. The reason I am perplexed is because in NH we pride ourselves on having the lowest taxes in the nation. We do not have an Income Tax nor do we have a sales Tax. What we do have is a tax on property that is used to fund our state treasury. We also have a system that allows the communities to use town property taxes to fund thier schools independently of the state and the communities have the right to run thier schools independently of Concord. We also cherish the fact that our state government does not intrude on the personal rights of the people and does not try to manage the lives of our citizens for us

Howard Dean on the other hand, espouses a platform that is an aenathema to to the ideals and feedoms of small government that makes my State so wonderful. He wants to get rid of the tax cuts and raise taxes on the businesses and the middle class to pay for social programs that do nothing but give more money to Beurocrats so they can intrude on our personal lives by trying manage how we live, eat, and earn money. Such tax increases will only levy the tax burden on over a million New Hampshirites. Tax burderns that we fought against in the Summer of 2001.

Howard Dean wants to increase government control on education when in NH, education is a right given to the community not to the state. In NH, We have schools that are some of the best in NE? Why? Becuase we allow our communities, not the state, to make judgements on how our schools are funded and run. We also do not just simply throw money at schools to make problems go away. We alow the townships and communities to make judgements independently of the state to correct problems. This system has worked for NH for many years, why should this be replaced by socialist beurocracies in Washington?

So why do my fellow citizens in NH want to vote for a guy that is the very anti-thesis of what NH stands for? I just son't get it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I cant really tell you... seeing as I dont know the specifics of your state... But frankly, I take a look at his platform, and I leap for joy.

[RedImperator]

Bush is hardly a champion of local autonomy in education. Whatever you want to say about Dean, his criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act is spot on.

[Andrew J.]

Maybe you don't understand what NH stands for as well as your neighbors.

[Stormbringer]

So why do my fellow citizens in NH want to vote for a guy that is the very anti-thesis of what NH stands for? I just son't get it.

Because Bush is no better and arguably worse in most respect. Plus the whole local appeal probably works as well.

[EmperorSolo51]

Maybe you don't understand what NH stands for as well as your neighbors.

If that were the case then why were thousands of letters pouring into the NH State House back into the summer 2001 against the raising of Property taxes and against the introduction of new taxes? Also, there were massive protests held outside the state legislature and there was even a march on the capital during a session of the legislature.

[EmperorSolo51]

So why do my fellow citizens in NH want to vote for a guy that is the very anti-thesis of what NH stands for? I just son't get it.

Because Bush is no better and arguably worse in most respect. Plus the whole local appeal probably works as well.

How is he no better than Dean. He is for cutting taxes and sending that money back to the people who had high taxes levied against then during the Clinton years. Dean on the otherhand wants to raise taxes and even introduce new ones to pay for ineficiant government beurocracies.

[baelfire1945]

I would guess that the people of NH are looking to Dean as the lesser of two evils compared to Bush. Before someone misinterprets that, I am entirely all about Dean for America. As for NH, the people see Bush infringing on their basic freedoms (ie, Patriot Act) and they realize: hey, everybody else in the industrialized world pays taxes, and if that is what it takes to stay away from an Orwellian State, that is what they will do. They also realize that if Dean makes it past the Primary, there is a chance to get Bush out; but if he doesn't then we have another four years of President Cunt to look forward to.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe you don't understand what NH stands for as well as your neighbors.

If that were the case then why were thousands of letters pouring into the NH State House back into the summer 2001 against the raising of Property taxes and against the introduction of new taxes? Also, there were massive protests held outside the state legislature and there was even a march on the capital during a session of the legislature.

Perhaps people in NH forgot their elementary math classes? Unless there's a huge surplus in your budget, I don't see how lowering taxes and giving money "back to the people" makes any mathematical sense. You seem to think that tax increases during the Clinton years were particularly onerous; well, at least the budget was eventually balanced. Now, with the huge spending increases put forth by the Bush administration (and don't bullshit me with this "he has to fight a war" crap; for every new military dollar, he found four new dollars for domestic pork), you are faced with two choices: increased taxes or increased deficits. Pick one; both choices are bad.

[EmperorSolo51]

Maybe you don't understand what NH stands for as well as your neighbors.

If that were the case then why were thousands of letters pouring into the NH State House back into the summer 2001 against the raising of Property taxes and against the introduction of new taxes? Also, there were massive protests held outside the state legislature and there was even a march on the capital during a session of the legislature.

Perhaps people in NH forgot their elementary math classes? Unless there's a huge surplus in your budget, I don't see how lowering taxes and giving money "back to the people" makes any mathematical sense.

The budget defecit in NH was caused by our Fmr. Democratic Governor Jean Shaheen. During her tenure as governmenr she enacted Property Tax hikes to cover the spending she made on social programs. When she wanted more money to increase spending on social programs more state control over education, she tried to get the Legislature to enact new taxes like state Income and Sales taxes. The legislature wisely decided not to enact any new taxes and gestered to her that she cut spending. She refused. That's why we have a defict. Our New governor is currently making plans to cut spending on social programs and enact tax cuts on property taxes.

you are faced with two choices: increased taxes or increased deficits. Pick one; both choices are bad.

There is a third way out though and that is one that politicians hate to do but it needs to be done anyway. The way I am talking about is balance the budget by getting rid of Beurocratic social programs that do nothing but eat up taxpayer money and use that money to the people/business so they can spend more to revitalize the economy.

[Andrew J.]

Maybe it's just sectionalism. Y'know, "Throw out that Texas yeehaw and replace him with a good old New England boy!"

[Thinkmarble]

There is a third way out though and that is one that politicians hate to do but it needs to be done anyway. The way I am talking about is balance the budget by getting rid of Beurocratic social programs that do nothing but eat up taxpayer money and use that money to the people/business so they can spend more to revitalize the economy.

Which social programs do you wish to eliminate ?

[Darth Wong]

There is a third way out though and that is one that politicians hate to do but it needs to be done anyway. The way I am talking about is balance the budget by getting rid of Beurocratic social programs that do nothing but eat up taxpayer money and use that money to the people/business so they can spend more to revitalize the economy.

Which social programs do you wish to eliminate ?

Isn't it obvious? Whichever ones he doesn't think he will personally need.

[EmperorSolo51]

Which social programs do you wish to eliminate ?

I think that Welfare needs to be eliminated and be replaced with a system that holds people more accountable and that forces people, who can truly work, to get a job otherwise no federal money. I think that Social Security should be reformed to allow the people to invest their money in private that they have earned and are putting away. I also agree with current legislation thats calls for Medicare (in trial format) to compete with private companies so that Senior Citizens have an option to go the private route if they nedd it when dealing with thier health care.

If we allow Medicare and Social Security to become even partially privitized, this will free millions, if not billions, of dollars from the national budget that Congress could use to either give out tax cuts, or pay down the national debt and would help greatly in balancing the budget.

[SirNitram]

Privatize everything. We saw how well that worked with the electrical system.

[Darth Wong]

Which social programs do you wish to eliminate ?

I think that Welfare needs to be eliminated and be replaced with a system that holds people more accountable and that forces people, who can truly work, to get a job otherwise no federal money.

What is your solution to single mothers? And since unemployment is never 0% (and cannot be, in a typical labour market), why do you think this will work?

I think that Social Security should be reformed to allow the people to invest their money in private that they have earned and are putting away.

Then they'll piss it away. People are stupid. 96% of individual investors in the stock market lose money, for example. Others go for the brilliant "lottery ticket" investment scheme.

I also agree with current legislation thats calls for Medicare (in trial format) to compete with private companies so that Senior Citizens have an option to go the private route if they nedd it when dealing with thier health care.

If we allow Medicare and Social Security to become even partially privitized, this will free millions, if not billions, of dollars from the national budget that Congress could use to either give out tax cuts, or pay down the national debt and would help greatly in balancing the budget.

Perhaps you were not aware that America has the most highly privatized health care system in the first world, and also the most expensive health care system in the first world (by a huge margin). I grow weary of this dogmatic bullshit axiomatic statement that privatization is always more efficient; it is not. There are many cases where it is, but health care isn't one of them. Did you know that America's privatized health care system has several times the administrative costs per capita of Canada's government-run health care system?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I always wondered why America had a general aversion to a gov't run healthcare system like the NHS here. With the expertise and resources in the US, they should be a leading power in healthcare for the people, not for those that can afford it.

For the best example, see France. They may take a large chunk out of your earnings for it, but it's the best damn healthcare you'll get on this planet for your buck.

[Darth Wong]

For the best example, see France. They may take a large chunk out of your earnings for it, but it's the best damn healthcare you'll get on this planet for your buck.

With a citizenry that drinks wine for dehydration and dies by the thousands in what we here in North America would consider a modest heat wave, I can see why they'd need it

[tharkûn]

Perhaps you were not aware that America has the most highly privatized health care system in the first world, and also the most expensive health care system in the first world (by a huge margin). I grow weary of this dogmatic bullshit axiomatic statement that privatization is always more efficient; it is not. There are many cases where it is, but health care isn't one of them. Did you know that America's privatized health care system has several times the administrative costs per capita of Canada's government-run health care system?

In the case of health care you are doing a crap comparison. The US consumer subsidizes Canadian healthcare, if the US ever got the same price breaks that the Canadian monopsopies get the drug companies would see their profit margins die and R&D plummet. I mean I once read that the University of Texas alone has a larger R&D budget than Canada. I also remember horror stories about waiting periods for surgery and other treatments in Canada ... has the backlog finally been reduced?

Tanstaafl is still alive and well ... somebody, somewhere, pays for everything.


Tell me are you in favour of monopolies and monopsonies in general? Or do you beleive that just because the government runs them they don't have the predictable effect on the economy?

In any event the giant money drain in American healthcare is not the private insurance companies, but rather Medicare and Medicaid ... the socialized portions of the system. Far more money per capita is obliterated in public healthcare than in private. It may just be that US medicare and medicaid are woefully inefficient, but reforming the
documented waste would drastically lower healthcare costs.

Having a hybrid system gives plenty of disadvantages with none of the benifits. Moving in either direction would be better than having a half-assed mix of both public and private.

Sir Nitram:
Privatize everything. We saw how well that worked with the electrical system.

Yes look how the "private" grids in New York and Michigan failed while the public grid in Ontario ... oh wait nevermind.

Tell me which US state has truly privatized electricity and not some half-assed system where an electrical monopoly performs as a subcontractor for the state? Semi-privatization schemes, like California, are worse than either outright privatization or outright public control. Call me old fashioned but as a general rule I hate all monopolies, government owned or otherwise.

[SirNitram]

So if a semiprivatized system fails, we should automagically assume if we fully privatized it, it would work beautifully? On what basis?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or we could also put money into the middle class, after all, they are the ones that provide the demand for businesses to work... We buy toasters, and new cars, and carpets, new homes... These are what boost the economy... not a Tycoon buying a new Jet(as opposed to the old Jet)

Now onto the social programs... Here is how I would reform them.

Welfare was originaly intended as a safety net for people hit by economic hardship during the depression... Unfortunatly it has strayed from this purpose and we have people that derive long term income from it. This needs to end. If you can work, you have a limited amount of time before your benifits end. Now there are only so many jobs, and if demand is low in our field, then exceptions can of course be made. Also, if you do not have the training to get a job that pays well enough to get you off welfare, then you will be required to seek training in a field of your choice.

Welfare leeches fixed

Now on to the healthcare...

Now for this... I would scrap medicare and medicaid completely. And create a new helthcare system modeled after germany. Private insurance still exists, no loss of jobs... Now... Here is how the German system works. The employer is REQUIRED to provide health insurance, the government pays half, the employer pays half. This health insurance must of course fully cover a person... I ave run the calculations, and it will end up costing federal coffers the same amount as our current health system does, and it will cover almost everyone.

Healthcare fixed.

Social security... Hmm... How about 401k that carries from employer to employer? Or some form of transferable pension program? This would eliminate costs to the government almost completely. And your pension would transfer from job to job either way. All it would really mean is more restrictions on business owners.

[Darth Wong]

In the case of health care you are doing a crap comparison. The US consumer subsidizes Canadian healthcare, if the US ever got the same price breaks that the Canadian monopsopies get the drug companies would see their profit margins die and R&D plummet. I mean I once read that the University of Texas alone has a larger R&D budget than Canada.

And you think the fact that health-care professionals are ridiculously overpaid in the US does not contribute to this? More money being thrown at the problem does not equate to higher quality care. In essence, you're trying to refute an argument about the inefficiency of the US health care system by saying it's more expensive. NO FUCKING SHIT, Sherlock. That's the whole point!

I also remember horror stories about waiting periods for surgery and other treatments in Canada ... has the backlog finally been reduced?

Funny; the last time I had to get surgery, I waited a couple of weeks. True horror story ...

Oh wait, you've swallowed a lot of bullshit propaganda, haven't you?

Tanstaafl is still alive and well ... somebody, somewhere, pays for everything.

Including the exorbitant administrative costs and salaries of the people in the health care industry of the US. Or did the point about how the per-capita administrative costs of the US health care system dwarf those of Canada sail completely over your head?

Tell me are you in favour of monopolies and monopsonies in general? Or do you beleive that just because the government runs them they don't have the predictable effect on the economy?

I see you decided to trot out the moronic false dilemma fallacy, where one must either support all monopolies or none. OK, let's play your game: do you oppose the government monopoly on the court system?

In any event the giant money drain in American healthcare is not the private insurance companies, but rather Medicare and Medicaid ... the socialized portions of the system. Far more money per capita is obliterated in public healthcare than in private. It may just be that US medicare and medicaid are woefully inefficient, but reforming the
documented waste would drastically lower healthcare costs.

Yet again, you simply ignore the point about the lower administrative costs of a single insurer as opposed to hundreds.

Having a hybrid system gives plenty of disadvantages with none of the benifits. Moving in either direction would be better than having a half-assed mix of both public and private.

Yet again with the false-dilemma fallacy

How about you try to justify that claim? The numbers don't work for you, so you try to weakly explain them away. What else have you got besides axiomatic statements?

Yes look how the "private" grids in New York and Michigan failed while the public grid in Ontario ... oh wait nevermind.

In case you're too fucking stupid to read the paper, the power failure was caused by Ohio, not Ontario.

Tell me which US state has truly privatized electricity and not some half-assed system where an electrical monopoly performs as a subcontractor for the state? Semi-privatization schemes, like California, are worse than either outright privatization or outright public control. Call me old fashioned but as a general rule I hate all monopolies, government owned or otherwise.

Yes, it's quite clear that you think in simplistic black-and-white axiomatic terms, irrespective of what the evidence suggests. How do your personal feelings change anything.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, and on a final note... Because I have common sense solutions to these issues, dont tell people what they want to hear, and will actuall protect your freedoms.. Vote for me whenever you get the chance.

[tharkûn]

First off let me apologise for being a dumbass, I misread one of your statements:
Did you know that America's privatized health care system has several times the administrative costs per capita of Canada's government-run health care system?
I simply read costs per capita. Complete and utter cock-up on my part.


And you think the fact that health-care professionals are ridiculously overpaid in the US does not contribute to this?
The "overpaying" of healthcare workers come from the idiotic state of American torts, medical schools not having enough spaces to meet the demand introducing a bottleneck on labour supply, and other things that have jack didly squat to do with wether you have a monopsony, private insurance, or a half-assed hybrid.

If the US went to a single payer system tommorrow healthcare professionals would STILL be overpaid because supply doesn't meet demand. Malpractice insurance would still cost ludicrious amounts of money because an ass backwards legal system would still favour lottery style litigation.

There are numerous other points of difference between Canada and the US effecting medical cost than the basic system. How much cheaper would American health care be if Canadian style legal processes (you still have loser pays to prevent scum sucking lawyers from cashing in, right?)? I don't know, but I'd wager a lot.

More money being thrown at the problem does not equate to higher quality care. In essence, you're trying to refute an argument about the inefficiency of the US health care system by saying it's more expensive. NO FUCKING SHIT, Sherlock. That's the whole point!

Why is it more expensive?

There are NUMEROUS reasons beyond the monopsony/many payers dichotomy. Things like cultural differences, differences in general standard of living, an asinine tort system, etc. all take and wear down on the healthcare system.

What does having a monopsony gain you if that is the ONLY difference? You get maximum leverage in prices, assuming beaurocratic comptenecy - less overhead, and standardized care.

What do you lose having a monopsony if that is the ONLY difference?
You lose some freedom of choice, tight profit margins keep the number of medical providers down, and as a general rule the market is less responsive which can sometimes lead to artificial shortages.



Funny; the last time I had to get surgery, I waited a couple of weeks. True horror story ...

Oh wait, you've swallowed a lot of bullshit propaganda, haven't you?

Depends on what the surgery was. For some types a "couple of weeks" is the same thing as a death warrant. I don't know, last thing I read on the subject was at least two years ago. But for the hell of it I googled and found this nice peice:
http://chealth.canoe.ca/health_news_det ... ws_id=8195*

When a patient waits two years for heart surgery, something is wrong. When you have to fly in heart surgeons from across the country something is wrong. Is this type of backlog normal in Canada? I haven't the foggiest. It is one of the POSSIBLE drawbacks.

Including the exorbitant administrative costs and salaries of the people in the health care industry of the US. Or did the point about how the per-capita administrative costs of the US health care system dwarf those of Canada sail completely over your head?
Yep, I was a dumbass and misread.

I see you decided to trot out the moronic false dilemma fallacy, where one must either support all monopolies or none. OK, let's play your game: do you oppose the government monopoly on the court system?


No I asked if you support them in general or if you support those run by the government. WHY is healthcare different than say computer operating systems in that it is better to have government running the show than private industry.

Yet again, you simply ignore the point about the lower administrative costs of a single insurer as opposed to hundreds.
Yes and what do you give up to have single insurer? You give up the ability for companies make large profits, and hence have obscene R&D budgets. You give up some market responsiveness of the system which can sometimes lead to artificial shortages. You give up some economic control of the system so it can now be used in pork politics (no-copays are popular with the voters, elect us and we will scrap them, of course without that disincentive to frivioliously consume healthcare the whole system will cost huge amounts more ... but hey it brings in the vote).

Further how much of the administrative cost in the US is due to many payers and how much is due to covering-your-ass-in-case-you-get-sued? Again it is not as simple as go monopsony and win, you'd need tort reform and other societal changes to reach parity with Canada (mind you most of those things would be good things, but without out them single payer doesn't solve all the problems).

How about you try to justify that claim? The numbers don't work for you, so you try to weakly explain them away. What else have you got besides axiomatic statements?
What is so hard to beleive about a hybrid sucking? You don't get the price leverage of a monopsony because there are many payers, but you also don't get the market responsiveness of many payers because the public portion of the system spews red tape, beaurocrats and paperwork. What advantages from EITHER system would hybrid receive?

In case you're too fucking stupid to read the paper, the power failure was caused by Ohio, not Ontario.
Which is why I didn't mention Ohio. Michigan, New York, and Ontario all got screwed, being a public utility or a semi-private one looks to have nothing to do with it. Being semi-private didn't cause power outages no more than being public cause HydroQuebec to fail in 1989. All the faults of healthcare or electricity production can NOT be traced back privatization.

Yes, it's quite clear that you think in simplistic black-and-white axiomatic terms, irrespective of what the evidence suggests. How do your personal feelings change anything.
What do you beleive that monopolies and monopsonies are good as a general rule? I think everyone agrees they are usually bad, so why in the cases of healtcare and electricity are they deemed good?

It is not just enough to say look the US system sucks and the Candanian one is better. There are plenty of other variables which can explain in part or in full why the American system sucks and the Candanian doesn't. If Canada ever has an ass-backward tort system as the US then straight up comparisons might be a bit more meaningful. When all the OTHER sources of problems come into effect you need a bit to demonstrate why A is better than B.

[tharkûn]

doh forgot to add this:

* I forgot how dress my link, my apologies