Just a reminder
Screenshot from 2024-07-04 21-54-30.png
To Privatize…
-
as the “sociallist” from the north, i feel like i should add something . . . .
Healthcare - definitely should be a nationalized service. Here it is (unfortunately) administered fairly inefficiently on a provincial level and even on a regional level. Still we pay MUCH less for health care with more coverage and better results than the US, and i figured this out pretty easily.
With private hospitals, you introduce money-consuming entities such as marketing and profits/dividends to shareholders. With the need for all of this money, it really constrains health care providers. Also with the number of insurance companies and the variety of plans, doctor’s hands are often tied in the amount and kind of care they may provide in hospitals. Add to the fact that nearly a quarter of the population is uninsured, and you have something that is getting out of control.
Defence obviously needs to be in the hands of an elected gov’t. Telecommunications as well need gov’t involvement to ensure accessibility to all regions - not just the big money ones.
Pharmaceuticals - nationalizing these would be extremely expensive, and i am not sure that gov’t would keep from limiting their potential. Energy - i agree, should have a considerable degree of gov’t involvement as typically it is garnered from nationalized resources and lands. Also there is less concern of business interests interfering with their provision of services.
Other than these, i think that gov’t should step in only where absolutely necessary, or where industry appears to be hurting the population through hubris, etc. -
i dont think health care should be nationalized, your helth is your responsibility, not the gevernments. so eat an apple a day and youll be all set :D
-
Electricity definately needs to be government run. And while we’re at it, lets make it all Nuclear instead of Fossil Fuels…
-
Yeah, i think the creator mixed up his words. He means nationalize industries.
yes this is what I mean… sorry for confusion…
GG
-
@marine36:
i dont think health care should be nationalized, your helth is your responsibility, not the gevernments. so eat an apple a day and youll be all set :D
i hope your grin implies a consideration that things are not this simple.
The fact is that ANYONE can and will be subject to a crashing medical health problem - whether it happens to them personally, or to a loved one. This may subject you to a one-time payout of between $2000-$500 000 depending on the nature of the problem, as well as the hospital stay. Most of North America is between 1 and 3 paychecks from bankruptcy, meaning that nearly any health incident without appropriate coverage could utterly bankrupt a person or family. Now i realize this is a worst case scenario as many Americans are covered by health insurance/medic-aid. Still - often this is not enough as insurance companies ignore a physician’s intuition when it comes to tests and treatments, with sub-par medical treatment for some patients.
The fact is that a healthy population by consideration of all determinants of health is a productive population that saves the gov’t fortunes in ancilliary costs - lost productivity, jail time, bankruptcy, prisons, education, etc. -
i know. the problem is people dont want to eat healthy because junk food tastes so good. i rarely get sick, its probably all the tofu my mom made me eat when i was younger.
-
I believe that everthing, inluding my tooth brush should be nationalized (or more correctly, LIBERATED, from the yoke of its capitalist taskmaster).
-
Open markets are good. They endorse competition that keeps prices low and my bank account high. The more supply, the cheaper the product.
-
Open markets are good. They endorse competition that keeps prices low and my bank account high. The more supply, the cheaper the product.
this is a nice theory.
They still need to be regulated.
Open competition is good, however the most efficient way to win a game is by killing your opponant. This is why we need rules in games. -
CC, when is the last time you saw Wal mart and Target Nukin it out? :-?
Murder is regulated by national law and therefore not even a section of the game…
It is nice in theory and actuality… What we don’t need is Canadian Competition :wink: :lol: J/K
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
CC, when is the last time you saw Wal mart and Target Nukin it out? :-?
Murder is regulated by national law and therefore not even a section of the game…
GGagain missing the point.
-
@cystic:
@Guerrilla:
CC, when is the last time you saw Wal mart and Target Nukin it out? :-?
Murder is regulated by national law and therefore not even a section of the game…
GGagain missing the point.
game=Market!
-
@Guerrilla:
game=Market!
but you took murder too literally.
-
oh ok… but logically you are trying to defeat your opponent… how will regulating the market help? it will destroy competition, profits, and low prices…
GG
-
It sets up rules. And without these rules being enforced, why should you stick to agreements? Why would i pay anything and not run away with my (then stolen) goods? As long as i am sure i will never have to deal with that person again, that is the most profitable way to go for me.
How can a market function if there is noone overseeing the basic principles (that are usually taken for granted, but effectively are control)?
-
F_alk - right. The question is, at what point are the regulations too much. When does gov’t guidence become gov’t interference? What are appropriate taxation levels, and how much help do the socio-economically disadvantaged deserve?
Not looking for an answer - just looking to demonstrate that i’m not a communist to the free-market USies here.
-
whoa whoa whoa….
dont be throwing “free-market” around all willy-nilly like thattheres nothing “free-market” about me, i resent being lumped in with these capitalist fools. (also not a communist, but not as foolish as a capitalist)
-
whoa whoa whoa….
dont be throwing “free-market” around all willy-nilly like thattheres nothing “free-market” about me, i resent being lumped in with these capitalist fools. (also not a communist, but not as foolish as a capitalist)
i was talking about “free-market USies” not “non-free-market USies”. pay attention.
-
Janus,
the “free market” was used as an adjective. It was not a generalisation. -
to me … the whole issue about “free market” and “capitalism” and “communism” … is quite an interesting thing.
In my view, neither of those “systems” is the right. Unfortunately i can’t name another or even a better one. So one has to look at each system, seeing, what it was meant for, what intends it has and in this context one might see that each of them has advantages along with disadvantages.
The main fault in my opinion is, that a lot of people just see advantages in the system they favor and disadvantages in other systems.
Getting to far from the point now and to get back to the topic i agree, that this “free” market doesn’t exist.
There allways need to be rules of course, since as F_Alk ( i guess it was him) stated the best way to get an advantage in this system is to “eliminate” competitors, allthough the whole system is about competition. When those competitors are “gone” the remaining one might control this market (monopol)
So rules have to be made just to make sure, the system as it is intendes, does not destroy itself.
CC is right as well, that there might be a point, where those regulations might become an interference. But again in my opinion whether it is an interference or if it is just an interference in the eyes of one competitor is the thing one has to consider, when speaking about those regulations.
To ensure, those regulations do not become an interference for the general system, the one controlling this regulations mustn’t be involved in the whole competition.
That is exactly one of the weak points and disadvantages of the whole system, since it has to be controlled to prevent it from destroying itself, but the ones who are in control are of course biased in their own favor.
So the government making those regulations has the ability to change them to their advantage or to the advantage of competitors who might stand behind this actual government, whether they are known or not.
Suggested Topics
