| Kasz216 said: Lets work from the back foward but adress healthcare last before getting back on topic. First off, we had a total of two judges in who have been arrested for that... which is such a small number it's ridiculious to pretend it's anything signifcant vs significant corruptuion in all court systems. You mean besides all the lobbying going on about getting tougher on petty crimes in order to fill these jails up? Two judges is still two judges too many, especially considering the miniscule number of states privatising prisons. Secondly, why do you blame that on privatisation exactly? Didn't the government have a monopoly when they controlled it? In the US we DON'T have monopolies, works out quite well for us, due to less government regulations. No monopolies huh? Oh how they forget about the workings of Standard Oil. And who helped out there to split them up? Oh right....the government. The one that you're pushing not to get involved in corporate affairs. Thirdly, as for electircity privatisation, well that would be your own fault for having too many government regulations... in the US private electricity works fine and is working better as we deregulate and allow more competition into the markets. Oh I LOVE it when they use this excuse. It's not due to the fact that electricity companies here turn in profits of billions annuallly, it's because the government is twisting their arms. That's the problem with conservative ideology. Even the most efficient private service cannot outperform the most efficient public service, due to the fact that investors are expecting a return. Fourthy, the vast majority of medical technology comes from the US specifically because of our healthcare sysetm which drives 80% of all healthcare R&D research. If we had public healthcare like everyone else the healthcare industry would be set back 15+ years. Hell think how much father along we'd be if everyone had the healthcare plan as us. The high end stuff now would probably be what the poor could get for cheap, and EVERYONES health would be better. Rather then just Europe and the rest sitting leaching off US tech once it becomes affordable enough for governments at a cheaper price. Oh wow, where would we be without the Americans to take all the credit for medical breakthroughs. Well, let's take a look at some of the major breakthroughs lately, shall we? Penicillin: Most likely the most important medical breakthrough of our time......was an Australian/Scottish/English discovery MRI: Developed at the University of Nottingham, England. Pacemaker: Saved thousands of lives and.....oh wait. Another Australian invention. Anaesthesia: Was first used in Germany DNA: First traces go back to the Unversity of Cambridge CT scan: First proposed by an Italian. Commercially viable thanks to the UK Chemotherapy: Well what do you know? Here's one made by Americans. Oh...but it was developed by the US Army. That's government owned, right? Vaccinations: These are from various locations, not just the United States. The most recent vaccine against HPV the cause of most cervical cancers, came from the University of Queensland. I'll give you one concession. Your advances to medical breakthroughs aren't by your privatisation, but by your large consumer base. As for your question of where we would be? Well, if I do recall, it was the US that banned cloning and stem cell research initially, almost like it doesn't wish to dominate in medicine, merely take the credit when somebody else discovers it. Now, to get back on topic. What happens if he doesn't save enough? The same thing that's going to happen anyway. He's going to be on Welfare, just like if he had social security, because social security is doomed to failure. Though does Social security keep tabs on who puts in what? If not, then surely that shows the underprivilidged are better off on social security. If not, then how exactly would the private option be better? You dug yourself into a bit of a hole there. Heck, if your going to argue that most people won't get enough to reitre, well that certaintly shows a problem doesn't it? We're putting in less then we're getting out, kinda reenforces the whole "Medicare is going to collapse and it's just a matter of who it collapses on" statement isn't it? I mean, if you can't get enough retirement out of an IRA that gets an average yield 3-7% higher then the 5% that the government bonds have listed... I mean... seriously... the system is screwed. So why not put in more to the existing system? Once again, how is privatisation going to change this? The idea of a mandatory scheme like social security is promised revenue that can accrue interest, enough to offset extra burden, especially with the boomers in retirement. A current "straight in-straight out" system only works when you don't have an aging population. The system itself isn't broken. It's the way that you executed it that was broken. Even more so when you consider the fact that the 5% interest rate number is fictional. It's the US spending $100 now and promising $105 later... well apparently unless the government is about to default on it's obligations, then your the very first people that are going to be cut out. Interesting. I'm getting 6% on my savings and that's just a generic savings account. I'm sure if I actually tried and invested in something like property or term investment, even safe investment could yield at least 12%. As what happened in the recent Debt Debate, where Obama through Social Security and Medicare recpients under the bus right away. As what's expected by a conservative president......wait.....you mean he's not? Must be nice to give his opponent 100% of what they wanted and still call it a fair compromise. Also, i mean.... you know not everyone gets social security right? For example, my mom didn't qualify because she didn't work 10 years. That sounds like social security being too right-leaning, not being too socialist. I mean god DAMN, how screwed up is the welfare there? |
I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT.
