Public option in

[IcarusAngel]

JRv_PvU6RZY

Suck it capitalists.

Imo, this will be a lifeline for so many families. I know many people who would not have made it - who simply would be dead -without government insurance. Now this is extended to many in the working class. This was bad politics on the part of the capitalists: the insurance companies admitted that they were going to raise prices if there was no public option. The republicans beat up on Democrats who were originally leaning against the public option, like Reid. That gives him nowhere else to go but for a public option.

Imo this is one of the greatest victories since minimum wage and I don't see this backfiring provided it is managed correctly for at least four years or so.


(Also notice that the YOUNG TURKS accepted as a video response: NOAM CHOMSKY: IS CAPITALISM REALLY MAKING LIFE BETTER. LOL.)

[IcarusAngel]

Health care with capitalism:

2VyNbuWbirU

V-IokYFy4Rw

QiYc0RMdH6E

(Also youtube or search Olbermann health care.)


Notice how this health care organization to help third world countries but now largely serves the US.

[GPDP]

Well, it's definitely better than nothing. Still, it will pale in comparison to single-payer, and I worry about the possibility that it might be badly managed or underfunded. But I suppose we'll see where this leads.

I just hate how we refuse to get rid of the parasites known as the health care industry. If we are to achieve meaningful universal health care, the insurance companies need to go out. Or if we absolutely must keep them, at least reduce their role to something similar like the German or Japanese models.

[Conquer or Die]

And all we need now is for the cowboys to win the super bowl.

[Robert]

one of the greatest victories since minimum wageTime will tell. But: 1) Hayenmill, et al rule on the economics of the minimum wage issue; and 2) no one here has ever explained how the average U.S. wage of around $15/hour, in the private sector, squares with the capitalists' supposed conspiracy to keep wages lower than what the minimum (~$7.25/hour) guarantees. What makes the capitalist pay a "slave" double what he is entitled to? Obviously many slaves make triple and quadruple the minimum.


I don't see this backfiring provided it is managed correctly for at least four years or so.

Well, with that proviso, neither do I. :lol:


search Olbermann health careNo thanks.


I worry about the possibility that it might be badly managedLine forms at the rear.

Kidding aside, I congratulate the ruling party for its achievement. Expansion of guaranteed access to cover people too poor to afford an insurance policy and too "rich"
for medicare is a necessity. I don't like the way democrats "think" (more feeling than anything else) but they're in charge so let them take a shot.

What I don't get is, health care reform under any guise is a manifestation of reformism, unlikely to accelerate revolution. Indeed, if it works, will it not retard revolution? I can see excitement on the left for a single-payer system, but not the creation of a program to run alongside insurance companies. It's not like it's going to kill them off, you know.

[Havet]

Time will tell. But: 1) Hayenmill, et al rule on the economics of the minimum wage issue

I'm flattered :blushing:

While this reform may be helpful to some people on the short run, it does nothing to address the real problems (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079).

And like Robert said, State action delays the revolution (people will view the current structure in a more friendly way and will be afraid to commit to more radical changes).

[RGacky3]

While this reform may be helpful to some people on the short run, it does nothing to address the real problems (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079).

And like Robert said, State action delays the revolution (people will view the current structure in a more friendly way and will be afraid to commit to more radical changes).

Hayenmill, things that make life better for people IS better, this is positive because its making peoples lives better. Thats what socialism is all about, trying to make peoples lives better, I'm an anarchist yes, reason being I want to make peoples lives better, this is something that does'nt follow anarchist thought (government healthcare) but its better than private health care for the average person and so I support it, lets not be dogmatic, its about people, not ideologies.


I congratulate the ruling party for its achievement. Expansion of guaranteed access to cover people too poor to afford an insurance policy and too "rich"
for medicare is a necessity. I don't like the way democrats "think" (more feeling than anything else) but they're in charge so let them take a shot.


this is only after the people have fought for it for decades, this is a reaction to the people, its not the rich peoples ideas. You on't like the way democrats "thing"? As opposed to the way republicans "think"?

[Bud Struggle]

The worst thing for the Revolution is if this thing is managed well.
The double worst thing for the Revolution is if this thing is managed poorly.

Hopefully this thing will get off the ground for the people who need it.

[#FF0000]

The worst thing for the Revolution is if this thing is managed well.
The double worst thing for the Revolution is if this thing is managed poorly.


A lot of people have this idea, and to be honest I don't think there's much to it. Nowadays, I'd say workers in Europe are generally far more militant than workers in America are. In fact, I know that's true, because American workers are in pathetic shape. In France, they give workers all sorts of neat things. 5 weeks payed vacation minimum, mental health trips to the south of France, and free healthcare, and all sorts of other goodies.

Still the French are more than willing to wave a few red flags and carry a couple signs. Or if the mood strikes them, they'd be more than happy to blow up their fucking factory for wages. (http://libcom.org/news/french-factory-workers-threaten-blow-factory-12072009)

Meanwhile, put in a similar situation, American workers sit on the production line and cheer as the last car produced in their factory is finished and the doors close forever.

This "Worse for workers, better for us" thing really doesn't hold too much water, from what I've seen. If it did, then the U.S. would be a prime candidate for revolution, but that's far from the case. The lack of general social welfare programs just leads to a brutalized, demoralized, and disorganized working class, which can only hurt us when an actual opportunity to maybe push a revolution presents itself.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree that the 'worse is better philosophy' of leftists is terrible. I can see why capitalists advocate because capitalists believing in transferring all wealth and resources into the hands of a few elite corporations, supposedly for the benefit of us all. If worse is better, then the revolution should have taken place in the US and the UK during the industrial revolution. Or it could have taken place during the Great Depression. Or it could have taken place during the Reagan/Thatcher years, whose free-market reforms devastated the working class.

The government is far more afraid of a healthy, educated, strong working class than an ignorant and weak one. Of course, capitalists don't really oppose government, considering that capital itself is a government.

All this reform is doing is moving government around a little bit, in a way that is more favorable to workers than it is to corporations. It is not increasing/decreasing government.

The 'big government/small government' is another false paradigm Libertarians offer to the working class, 'small, good government' of course meaning pro-capitalist slavery.

[IcarusAngel]

Time will tell. But: 1) Hayenmill, et al rule on the economics of the minimum wage issue;

The minimum wage, a high one at least, creates a standard working class and provides enough demand to keep the economy stable. Some economists believe then that not only does the minimum wage not increase unemployment, it actually decreases it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Standard_theory_criticism

It has the further effect of lowering turnover rates and so on. Economics is a flawed science but we've seen countries without minimum wage laws (and with no means to force corporations into an agreement as to a minimum wage) are economic disaster zones.

The minimum wage is lower now, inflation adjusted, than it was in the 70s, and again we're seeing a total breakdown of the extreme poor in the country (who previously were making gains in the US).

To not have a minimum wage is capitalist slavery, like the Gilded Age saw, and does nothing to further the cause of leftists.


Well, with that proviso, neither do I. :lol:

The government and the public can always outcompete the market. However, in America it's no secret that our government is corrupt and too influenced by the captialists. This is people's lives, however, so hopefully it is managed better.



Kidding aside, I congratulate the ruling party for its achievement. Expansion of guaranteed access to cover people too poor to afford an insurance policy and too "rich"
for medicare is a necessity. I don't like the way democrats "think" (more feeling than anything else) but they're in charge so let them take a shot.

What I don't get is, health care reform under any guise is a manifestation of reformism, unlikely to accelerate revolution. Indeed, if it works, will it not retard revolution? I can see excitement on the left for a single-payer system, but not the creation of a program to run alongside insurance companies. It's not like it's going to kill them off, you know.

Yes, single payer is far better. That would eliminate most of the problems that exists with our system. This is more of an attempt to break up the insurance monopoly and stop price fixing, which was outrageous, and the ability of insurance companies to easily deny coverage.

However, this could be a road to single-payer. Even if it fails, that does not necessarily mean that America will have to wait even longer to get the single payer system. Furthermore, if it succeeds, it could likely mean we get single-payer faster than if we never had the public option in the first place. I try and weigh those factors and I think it comes out in favor of having a public option.

Besides, capitalism as we know it might not even be around in another 50 years or so. It is likely going through another one of its 'reforming periods.' And so while this is happening we might has well have more resources being provided to the poor.

As for the claim that it is delaying the revolution, this has been refuted, but also, by trying to expand capitalism, you show the limitations of capitalism, and make people realize that capitalism cannot be a sustainable system for the advanced economy of the future, because it fails to get things do.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, things that make life better for people IS better, this is positive because its making peoples lives better. Thats what socialism is all about, trying to make peoples lives better, I'm an anarchist yes, reason being I want to make peoples lives better, this is something that does'nt follow anarchist thought (government healthcare) but its better than private health care for the average person and so I support it, lets not be dogmatic, its about people, not ideologies.


I understand where you're coming from, but like I said above, there are other factors which may end up hurting the poorest's healthcare access in the long run.

[Havet]

The minimum wage, a high one at least, creates a standard working class and provides enough demand to keep the economy stable. Some economists believe then that not only does the minimum wage not increase unemployment, it actually decreases it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Standard_theory_criticism

It has the further effect of lowering turnover rates and so on. Economics is a flawed science but we've seen countries without minimum wage laws (and with no means to force corporations into an agreement as to a minimum wage) are economic disaster zones.

The minimum wage is lower now, inflation adjusted, than it was in the 70s, and again we're seeing a total breakdown of the extreme poor in the country (who previously were making gains in the US).

To not have a minimum wage is capitalist slavery, like the Gilded Age saw, and does nothing to further the cause of leftists.


Care of answering my criticisms and DejaVu's before spreading more lies?

[RGacky3]

I understand where you're coming from, but like I said above, there are other factors which may end up hurting the poorest's healthcare access in the long run.

Well, comparing European healthcare standards to the United states, (Europes had universal healthcare for a long time now), I think your full of it.

[Havet]

Well, comparing European healthcare standards to the United states, (Europes had universal healthcare for a long time now), I think your full of it.

Full of what?

Europe's healthcare system may be "free", but it has a lot of problems. Some of the problems are not directly linked to the healthcare system, but others are, with other factors, such as drug companies, IP laws, artificial monopolies, oligopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony), etc

Not to mention waiting times in some extreme cases.

(Do notice I agree that the USA is in a worse position, just dont think this is the best option for everyone)

[RGacky3]

Europe's healthcare system may be "free", but it has a lot of problems. Some of the problems are not directly linked to the healthcare system, but others are, with other factors, such as drug companies, IP laws, artificial monopolies, oligopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony), etc

Not to mention waiting times in some extreme cases.

(Do notice I agree that the USA is in a worse position, just dont think this is the best option for everyone)

Sure, but it IS better for everyone, than the United States, and since actual total anarchism is'nt going to happen anytime soon, I support anything that is better for everyone.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

How is this a great victory? Apparently it will be pretty much the same price as private plans, except now every American is forced to either pay for insurance or pay some fine. This is just gonna put more money in the hands of the insurance companies.

[Havet]

Sure, but it IS better for everyone, than the United States, and since actual total anarchism is'nt going to happen anytime soon, I support anything that is better for everyone.

It certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon, since people will now have a public option for "free", they are less likely to protest for even better conditions.

Big Brother Welfare-Warfare Society 1 - 0 Anarchism

[Die Rote Fahne]

Suck it capitalists? As much better as it is from totally private, the government run insurance company is pseudo-state capitalism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon, since people will now have a public option for "free", they are less likely to protest for even better conditions.

Big Brother Welfare-Warfare Society 1 - 0 Anarchism

Free public option? No, you have to pay for it. This has nothing to do with welfare states. There isn't anything good about it.

[Havet]

Free public option? No, you have to pay for it. This has nothing to do with welfare states. There isn't anything good about it.

I agree comrade that it isn't free. Hell, nothing is free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL).

But this society is indeed a mixture of welfare and warfare projects.

[#FF0000]

It certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon, since people will now have a public option for "free", they are less likely to protest for even better conditions.

Big Brother Welfare-Warfare Society 1 - 0 Anarchism

Prove. it.

People go on and on and on about how having things good means that workers will never, ever want anything more. That is demonstrably false unless someone wants to show me something that would refute the fact that all of Europe has better social welfare programs and all of Europe has more class militancy than than, for instance, the United States, which has terrible social welfare and hardly anything at all in regards to class consciousness or militancy.

[IcarusAngel]

Care of answering my criticisms and DejaVu's before spreading more lies?

You two posted irrelevant rantings and graphs that had nothing to do with the minimum wage, or the fact that millions of people died during the industrial revolution. It was nothing more than rants on a street corner.

The wiki article cites trained economists - economists who think outside the box - who show that welfare is indeed a good thing in a capitalist economy. Until capitalism is eliminated, it should stay around, and nearly every country has welfare.

Neither one of you were able to combat the facts provided.


Big Brother Welfare-Warfare Society 1 - 0 Anarchism


Lol. Yeah because private tyrannies are the equivalent of anarchism - even though anarchism has historically been opposed to both capital, and landed property owners.

Furthermore, advanced social democracies like Europe are LESS likely to engage in imperialism than countries like the US where a large percentage of the budget goes to warfare. If the state is focusing more on its population, that is less time that they are focusing on capitalist imperailism or expansionism. France and other countries used to involve themselves in imperial conflicts all the time (Algeria, etc.) and now they're known for being 'pascifists.'

In fact, every time the US has gone to privatization there has been more capitalist expansionism: in the 1920s, 1980s, and in the 2000s under Bush.

[Havet]

Prove. it.

People go on and on and on about how having things good means that workers will never, ever want anything more. That is demonstrably false unless someone wants to show me something that would refute the fact that all of Europe has better social welfare programs and all of Europe has more class militancy than than, for instance, the United States, which has terrible social welfare and hardly anything at all in regards to class consciousness or militancy.

Since Europe has had better social welfare programs and "class militancy" than the USA, how come there hasn't been a revolution during that time?

Shouldn't workers have demanded more to the point of a revolution? As time has progressed, shouldn't workers have become aware of the problems?

No. You have some protests and strikes here and there, mostly about layoffs (of private companies) or regarding reforms which are felt needed of some public programs.

[IcarusAngel]

How is this a great victory? Apparently it will be pretty much the same price as private plans, except now every American is forced to either pay for insurance or pay some fine. This is just gonna put more money in the hands of the insurance companies.

No, the public option is a government plan. There was a plan that would have forced people to buy insurance but it was voted down. A government plan is not the same thing as private insurance.

Imagine a 'public store' being set up that will compete with a private store in order to serve poor customer's with food. Farmers would be required to sell produce and foodstuffs to the stores for 10-20% less than they do to Wal-Mart etc. There would be no sales tax collected at the public store. There would be no profits made at the public store, and no money would be wasted on advertising, thus raising the prices of the food in the store. Furthermore, an administration would be set up to determine what is sold there (you don't want people making bad nutritional decisions) Finally, the public store would always be open, no matter if it was making a profit or not.

Do you seriously thing the private corporations could compete with the public store?

Of course, not.

Don't let hayenmill feed you lies. The insurance companies have ADMITTED they dont' want the public option.

Why would the insurance companies spend billions of dollars rallying AGAINST something that actually favors them?

Don't let his reverse psychology (capitalist slavery is now good for the workers, it speeds up the revolution, right. :laugh:) or Libertarian propaganda fool you, it is indeed a first step towards UHC, and there is no way that Democrats will let this thing fail or they will be out of power for years.

[Havet]

You two posted irrelevant rantings and graphs that had nothing to do with the minimum wage, or the fact that millions of people died during the industrial revolution. It was nothing more than rants on a street corner.

The wiki article cites trained economists - economists who think outside the box - who show that welfare is indeed a good thing in a capitalist economy. Until capitalism is eliminated, it should stay around, and nearly every country has welfare.

Neither one of you were able to combat the facts provided.

Both of us did not deny that millions of people died during the IR. It is you who seem to ignore all the benefits that came because of it, despite the past and present exploitation.


Lol. Yeah because private tyrannies are the equivalent of anarchism - even though anarchism has historically been opposed to both capital, and landed property owners.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8726/strawmank.jpg


Furthermore, advanced social democracies like Europe are LESS likely to engage in imperialism than countries like the US where a large percentage of the budget goes to warfare. If the state is focusing more on its population, that is less time that they are focusing on capitalist imperailism or expansionism. France and other countries used to involve themselves in imperial conflicts all the time (Algeria, etc.) and now they're known for being 'pascifists.'

In fact, every time the US has gone to privatization there has been more capitalist expansionism: in the 1920s, 1980s, and in the 2000s under Bush.

So what?

Does that hide the fact that they are still exploiting workers? No.

Does that hide the fact that all people still have shitty options? No.

Does that hide the fact that people are forced to pay for some services? No.

[Conquer or Die]

Since Europe has had better social welfare programs and "class militancy" than the USA, how come there hasn't been a revolution during that time?

Shouldn't workers have demanded more to the point of a revolution? As time has progressed, shouldn't workers have become aware of the problems?

No. You have some protests and strikes here and there, mostly about layoffs (of private companies) or regarding reforms which are felt needed of some public programs.

You raise a good point. There is little militancy or responsibility for the working class because they are mostly satisfied with their limited gains from the state and private property. France has an intellectual tradition of militancy but manifests itself in existentialist demands rather than materialist ones.

[IcarusAngel]

There are far more workers' strikes and rebellions in Europe than America. Look at Greece, France, etc....

We haven't had a strike or protest like the ones in Greece in America since the labor riots.

Frankly, we need a 'public option' in everything: food, agriculture, etc. We already have a public option (in some states) when it comes to electricity, water, and so on. Even in Wyoming they have PUBLIC utilities and cooperatives, instead of private tyrants.

Furthermore, the US health care system already sucks billions of dollars from the government. They should reform the whole thing and make all of it a public option.

Socialism, after all, is one big 'public option.' Everything is run by the public (the workers) and nothing is run by the capitalists.

[Havet]

You raise a good point. There is little militancy or responsibility for the working class because they are mostly satisfied with their limited gains from the state and private property. France has an intellectual tradition of militancy but manifests itself in existentialist demands rather than materialist ones.

This is exactly what I mean. If people become more comfortable they are less likely to perceive more general, intrinsic problems inherent to the system.

In short: Why would you want a revolution if you can watch TV?

[Black Star]

The public option is a tiny step in the right direction, but doesn't nearly go far enough. But never was to go as far as it should be with America's politics being so conservative and right-wing.

[IcarusAngel]

If poor conditions create a radical working class - why don't we just go back to slavery? Then we won't have all these 'comfortable' workers who have the audacity to enjoy a 'luxery' such as watching television once in a while - likely because they can't even read at an adult level here in America anyway (the real reason why TV is so popular here).


Oppose capitalism by supporting the worst aspects of it. That is Libertarian common sense at work. :laugh: Unbelievable.

[IcarusAngel]

The public option is a tiny step in the right direction, but doesn't nearly go far enough. But never was to go as far as it should be with America's politics being so conservative and right-wing.


Yes, this is it. In America, though, a tiny sliver of something that has some decent things in it is a huge victory.

And really, I just can't tell one of the the 40 million+ who don't have insurance that they have to 'wait' until the right-wing in America gives them UHC. TBH, we'll probably see an anti-capitalist revolution before we see UHC with no precedent like a public option opening up the path a little bit.

[Havet]

If poor conditions create a radical working class - why don't we just go back to slavery? Then we won't have all these 'comfortable' workers who have the audacity to enjoy a 'luxery' such as watching television once in a while - likely because they can't even read at an adult level here in America anyway (the real reason why TV is so popular here).

Oppose capitalism by supporting the worst aspects of it. That is Libertarian common sense at work. :laugh: Unbelievable.

Hey, I thought non-restricted members were revolutionary leftists?

Whats revolutionary about reformism?

Sure it might help, but it doesn't address the fundamental issues (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-libertarian-approach-t115079/index.html?t=115079).

[IcarusAngel]

You're misusing the criticisms of reformism. Reformism is the belief that capitalism can be made sustainable and better by actions of the government, to the point of reaching socialism. I think it's true that anything can be reformed (including slavery to some extent) but not that it can be 'eliminated' through these reforms.

However, this is merely opposing one set of reforms (privatization) in favor of another (public option), which will make it better, more transparent, more open, etc., because everybody knows America's current health care system is a huge waste that costs the lives of tens of thousands of people every year.

So, the public option is simply better than the private tyranny plans. Furthermore, I think it helps the cause of the revolution and not just because people are more healthy.

You can see, the public option is better than capitalism, but what would really work is democratically run factories. And then workers could take over the factories and run them in such a fashion.

[Havet]

You're misusing the criticisms of reformism. Reformism is the belief that capitalism can be made sustainable and better by actions of the government, to the point of reaching socialism. I think it's true that anything can be reformed (including slavery to some extent) but not that it can be 'eliminated' through these reforms.

k


However, this is merely opposing one set of reforms (privatization) in favor of another (public option), which will make it better, more transparent, more open, etc., because everybody knows America's current health care system is a huge waste that costs the lives of tens of thousands of people every year.

How do you know it will become more transparent?


So, the public option is simply better than the private tyranny plans. Furthermore, I think it helps the cause of the revolution and not just because people are more healthy.

How does it help the cause of revolution to keep workers healthy in order to remain their exploitation?


You can see, the public option is better than capitalism, but what would really work is democratically run factories. And then workers could take over the factories and run them in such a fashion.

Why not just act directly towards that goal?

[#FF0000]

Since Europe has had better social welfare programs and "class militancy" than the USA, how come there hasn't been a revolution during that time?

Since the USA has the most absurd and poorly thought out set of social welfare programs and the working class in the United States is routinely dicked over to the point that thousands of them die per year from treatable illnesses on emergency room waiting room floors, how come there hasn't been a revolution?

I can't give you a certain answer as to why there hasn't been a revolution. I don't know exactly how to bring one about. What I do know is that brutalizing the working class is not the way to get ready for one, though. I mean, think about it.


No. You have some protests and strikes here and there, mostly about layoffs (of private companies) or regarding reforms which are felt needed of some public programs.

Which is far better than what we have in the United States, which is an entire class of people who are absolutely terrified to even think to step out of line because of the near total lack of a safety net and obscene cost of medical care.

[Durruti's Ghost]

People don't rise up when they have to worry about keeping food on the table from day to day. They rise up when the oppressive boot of the ruling class starts to lift a little.

[Havet]

Since the USA has the most absurd and poorly thought out set of social welfare programs and the working class in the United States is routinely dicked over to the point that thousands of them die per year from treatable illnesses on emergency room waiting room floors, how come there hasn't been a revolution?

Perhaps because there, too, the costs of achieving a "comfortable" lifestyle rather affordable to most the population, so less people will gain any interest in any real political change.


What I do know is that brutalizing the working class is not the way to get ready for one, though. I mean, think about it.

Well yeah, but I don't intend to brutalize the working class. I just think they are still being ripped off, and need better solutions.


Which is far better than what we have in the United States, which is an entire class of people who are absolutely terrified to even think to step out of line because of the near total lack of a safety net and obscene cost of medical care.

You really think its the fear? I think it has more to do with the ability to achieve a "comfortable" lifestyle rather cheaply. I mean think about it: gasoline "was/is" cheap there, cars "are/were" rather inexpensive to most people, credit was readily available, people could get loans to get whatever they wanted.

[Bud Struggle]

You really think its the fear? I think it has more to do with the ability to achieve a "comfortable" lifestyle rather cheaply. I mean think about it: gasoline "was/is" cheap there, cars "are/were" rather inexpensive to most people, credit was readily available, people could get loans to get whatever they wanted.

Without a doubt that's the answer. For ALMOST everyone America gives people a rather good lifestyle. I think the average American worker has a better lifestyle than most of the European Middle Class.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I agree comrade that it isn't free. Hell, nothing is free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL).

But this society is indeed a mixture of welfare and warfare projects.

I am not your comrade.


No, the public option is a government plan. There was a plan that would have forced people to buy insurance but it was voted down. A government plan is not the same thing as private insurance.

This plan also forces you to buy insurance. Sure, you can pick the government plan, but only if you're in the restricted group of people that it's available too.


Imagine a 'public store' being set up that will compete with a private store in order to serve poor customer's with food. Farmers would be required to sell produce and foodstuffs to the stores for 10-20% less than they do to Wal-Mart etc. There would be no sales tax collected at the public store. There would be no profits made at the public store, and no money would be wasted on advertising, thus raising the prices of the food in the store. Furthermore, an administration would be set up to determine what is sold there (you don't want people making bad nutritional decisions) Finally, the public store would always be open, no matter if it was making a profit or not.

Do you seriously thing the private corporations could compete with the public store?

Of course, not.


First, it's only available to a small amount of the population:


House and Senate bills limit the option to the smallest businesses and to individuals who cannot get insurance, or whose health care costs exceed 12.5 percent of their income. Even seven years into an overhaul, an estimated 90 percent of Americans, including nearly everyone who has employer-based coverage now, would be shut out of a public option.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/29/MNAL1ABCOT.DTL#ixzz0VSSAXNVe

Secondly, it's not going to be much cheaper:


The "public option" Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates, as the Congressional Progressive Caucus and key Senate Democrats have proposed.
Rather, under the Pelosi plan, the rates be tied to those of the big insurance companies. That's a big, big victory for the insurance industry, as it will undermine the ability of the public option to compete -- and to create pressure for reduced costs."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/30/opinion/main5462571.shtml




Don't let hayenmill feed you lies. The insurance companies have ADMITTED they dont' want the public option.

So everything that companies don't like is automatically good?


Why would the insurance companies spend billions of dollars rallying AGAINST something that actually favors them?


Because they want a bill that favors them even more.


Don't let his reverse psychology (capitalist slavery is now good for the workers, it speeds up the revolution, right. :laugh:) or Libertarian propaganda fool you, it is indeed a first step towards UHC, and there is no way that Democrats will let this thing fail or they will be out of power for years.

I haven't based this on anything he's said. It's all over the internet.

OGOGbd_nMx8

[Skooma Addict]

I know plenty of people want universal health care, but I think it would be a terrible idea. But I have a question, and lets assume for the moment that we have universal healthcare. What if I refuse to pay for the healthcare? What do you think should be done?

[IcarusAngel]

This plan also forces you to buy insurance. Sure, you can pick the government plan, but only if you're in the restricted group of people that it's available too.



First, it's only available to a small amount of the population:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/29/MNAL1ABCOT.DTL#ixzz0VSSAXNVe


Secondly, it's not going to be much cheaper:




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/30/opinion/main5462571.shtml




So everything that companies don't like is automatically good?


Because they want a bill that favors them even more.



I haven't based this on anything he's said. It's all over the internet.

OGOGbd_nMx8


Those are all good points. The final version of the PO hasn't been finished yet, and there are many versions, so we'll see if it turns out as bad as that article says. I agree that in many cases the above (forcing people into private tyranny) would actually be worse - because many people just can't afford insurance and you create a whole new set of problems.

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-public-option-in-cong_b_340501.html

[Havet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-public-option-in-cong_b_340501.html

Sounds more like "Suck it, uninsured" to me :(

[PRC-UTE]

It certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon, since people will now have a public option for "free", they are less likely to protest for even better conditions.

Big Brother Welfare-Warfare Society 1 - 0 Anarchism

I'd say the opposite.

With less poor children dying from lack of medical coverage, (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/chld-o30.shtml) and less workers keeping shit jobs for the insurance as is commonplace in the States, the more possibilities there are for the working class to organise.

Hard to do that when you're working three jobs to pay for your young ones medical bills and spending all of your time dealing with the horrible bureaucracy and nightmare that is US healthcare.

anyway, couldn't be much worse than what the US has now.

As far as welfare state v anarchism, well that's pure petit bourgeois nonsense.

[Havet]

I'd say the opposite.

With less poor children dying from lack of medical coverage, (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/chld-o30.shtml) and less workers keeping shit jobs for the insurance as is commonplace in the States, the more possibilities there are for the working class to organise.

Hard to do that when you're working three jobs to pay for your young ones medical bills and spending all of your time dealing with the horrible bureaucracy and nightmare that is US healthcare.

anyway, couldn't be much worse than what the US has now.

As far as welfare state v anarchism, well that's pure petit bourgeois nonsense.

This does not explain why in Europe, where they have had more welfare programs and working class organization, they have failed to make any real meaningful change to the system, like, you know, a revolution.

[IcarusAngel]

Some good aspects of the public option were allowed to be beaten back by Libertarian and conservative rhetoric to the point where it is unrecognizable from the 5 key steps on that link shown above.

However, much as a plant needs to be nurtured, perhaps the public option will morph into the original plan. This has happened before (look at SS).

[Robert]

Olaf, you should be required to pay your doctor directly. If he will treat you. Then you should be put in jail until you get your mind right.

I'd like to revisit this a minute: Imo this is one of the greatest victories since minimum wage

I failed to point out in my response that the only thing that has really happened to date is that several committees of one branch of the government have co-written a bill (a proposed law). It's still a long way (maybe 3 months) away from becoming law, and there are many differing views to be accomodated for it to even get out of the House. Moreover, it does not contain the "robust" public option that the speaker wanted:


In the end, Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House leaders were unable to round up the necessary votes for their preferred version of the government insurance plan — one that would base payment rates to providers on rates paid by Medicare. Instead, the Health and Human Services secretary would negotiate rates with providers, the approach preferred by moderates and the one that will be featured in the Senate's version. That marked a defeat for liberal lawmakers, who argued for months that a public insurance plan tied to Medicare would save more money for the government, and offer cheaper rates to consumers. Moderates feared that doctors, hospitals and other providers, particularly those in rural states, would be hurt, and in the end they looked poised to prevail, despite constituting a distinct minority in the 256-member House Democratic caucus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33505786/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
If and when it passes the House or Representatives, it will then have to be reconciled with a senate bill which appears to be sure to contain an "opt-out" provision or individual states! Where do you see that going?

http://democrats.senate.gov/

In short, don't uncork the champagne yet. [On edit: I see where Icarus recognizes the status of the bill at 22:32. I do expect you'll get something before the end of the year.]

Now, on a related front, since the "revolutionaries" on the board are pretty well locked in to a reformist position on health care, or at least what the rest of us consider "reformist," I wonder then that this particular House Plan is greeted with so much enthusiasm when it has not even been "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office. So we don't know whether the contemplated cuts in Medicare (how much will that hurt?) and tax increases will be enough to pay for it. Fiscal health of the government -- until such time as you are really ready to bring it down, which you are not -- is good for the people too.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I know plenty of people want universal health care, but I think it would be a terrible idea. But I have a question, and lets assume for the moment that we have universal healthcare. What if I refuse to pay for the healthcare? What do you think should be done?

Explain why it's a terrible idea.

[Skooma Addict]

Olaf, you should be required to pay your doctor directly. If he will treat you. Then you should be put in jail until you get your mind right.

So you think that I should be kidnapped from my home and thrown into a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I did not want?

[PRC-UTE]

This does not explain why in Europe, where they have had more welfare programs and working class organization, they have failed to make any real meaningful change to the system, like, you know, a revolution.

Well I've lived in continental Europe, Ireland and North America, and I would wager any amount that of all them places the working class were weakest in America. By a wide margin.

And anyway, Europe has had revolutions many times

[#FF0000]

You really think its the fear? I think it has more to do with the ability to achieve a "comfortable" lifestyle rather cheaply. I mean think about it: gasoline "was/is" cheap there, cars "are/were" rather inexpensive to most people, credit was readily available, people could get loans to get whatever they wanted.

But every worker in Europe has much easier access to a far more comfortable lifestyle than the average American worker, but are still willing to go and strike and unionize.

I don't understand where you get this idea that Americans have such an easy life. American workers live shorter lives with more health problems than the European worker. American workers have a lower quality of life than European workers. American cities seem to be riddled with far more crime and pollution than most European cities. And yet, in spite of all this, and the absurd set up of welfare and social security and unemployment, American workers are, and have been for the past century if not more, the least conscious, the least militant, and the most backwards bunch of workers in the Western world.

There's are better pacifiers than universal healthcare and a good social security and welfare system, and they are crushing debt and being kept 3 weeks away from poverty at any given time.

EDIT: Either way I understand what you're coming from. You'd prefer an independent, autonomous, community run sort of thing to deal with these problems rather than a government program

[Skooma Addict]

Explain why it's a terrible idea.

There would be rationing and it would be too difficult to rationally allocate resources.

Can you explain to me why I should be kidnapped from my home and thrown into a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I did not want?

[Robert]

So you think that I should be kidnapped from my home and thrown into a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I did not want?


Dude, learn to take a joke. I was just kidding you!

But to your point, the same complaint could be made by people who don't want to pay income taxes because it goes to pay for arts, wars, and public works projects they don't approve of. I predict that the fee the government will charge you if you don't have health insurance will be folded into your federal income tax bill somehow, probably by offering a credit against your income if you do have insurance, no credit if you don't.

If you don't pay it, or try to take the credit without having bought the insurance, then yes, that would be tax fraud which would carry civil and possible criminal penalties. Sorry. But it's no different for any other stripe of tax protester.

If you don't like it, revolt.

[Robert]

I know plenty of people want universal health care

What I think the stats show is that a majority wants reform, and for reform to include a public option.


[S]izable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html


That is not the same as saying that the majority necessarily want to elect that option for themselves. I don't think they do. How can they since they don't really know what it covers or what it costs?


Posted Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:16 PM
Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance
Gallup has today released some analysis on public perceptions of health insurers based on polls conducted from 2006-08. The data cuts to the heart of why the the President is having such difficulty in selling plans to reform health insurance: public or private, people like their health insurance. According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good. Similarly, 75% of those with private plans and 74% on government-run plans rate their insurance plan as excellent or good. It's hard to convince people that change is necessary when they are pretty content with how things are, which is part of the reason Obama's job is so hard. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/01/poll-finds-large-majority-of-americans-happy-with-their-health-insurance.aspx

[Skooma Addict]

Dude, learn to take a joke. I was just kidding you!

So you don't think I should be thrown in jail?


If you don't pay it, or try to take the credit without having bought the insurance, then yes, that would be tax fraud which would carry civil and possible criminal penalties. Sorry. But it's no different for any other stripe of tax protester.


But do you think it is ethical to kidnap me from my house and throw me in a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I didn't want?



If you don't like it, revolt.

I am not going to revolt. I am going to concentrate my efforts on improving my life. I would rather not get thrown in jail.

[Robert]

So you don't think I should be thrown in jail?

Not again!


But do you think it is ethical to kidnap me from my house and throw me in a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I didn't want?



No. But it is a political reality that you can't just refuse to obey the law without suffering that consequence.


I am not going to revolt. I am going to concentrate my efforts on improving my life. I would rather not get thrown in jail.

Great.

[Conquer or Die]

But do you think it is ethical to kidnap me from my house and throw me in a cage because I didn't pay for a service that I didn't want?

Is it ethical for me to be punished for raping a woman because she couldn't defend herself?

[Skooma Addict]

No. But it is a political reality that you can't just refuse to obey the law without suffering that consequence.

I know this. But if you think it is unethical for me to be forced to pay for a service that I do not want, then I assume you opposed to universal health care.


Is it ethical for me to be punished for raping a woman because she couldn't defend herself?

In my opinion it is ethical for you to be punished.

[Robert]

But if you think it is unethical for me to be forced to pay for a service that I do not want, then I assume you opposed to universal health care.

Actually, we already have much more "free" care than most on the left will admit, even for undocumented aliens, but yes, as "universal health care" is commonly understood in the USA, I think it creates as many problems as it addresses, probably more. Especially for a country full (approaching 30% now and climbing) of obese diabetics who will not accept ANY coercion to stay fit in exchange for the care. I predict that the word "health-Nazi" will enter the lexicon very soon, this to describe a bureaucrat who asks you to lose weight and get a little exercise as part of your health regimen.

This is the unintended consequence that most Americans screaming for health care cannot, or will not, see.

[Dejavu]

I'd say the opposite.

With less poor children dying from lack of medical coverage, (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/chld-o30.shtml) and less workers keeping shit jobs for the insurance as is commonplace in the States, the more possibilities there are for the working class to organise.

Hard to do that when you're working three jobs to pay for your young ones medical bills and spending all of your time dealing with the horrible bureaucracy and nightmare that is US healthcare.

anyway, couldn't be much worse than what the US has now.

As far as welfare state v anarchism, well that's pure petit bourgeois nonsense.

I heard about this a few days ago. I'm glad you brought it up. I found related articles talking about the same thing and based off the four total sources I think we can draw up some logical conclusions. Unfortunately I was not able to access the Journal itself but since four sources are in fair unison its reasonable to trust their accuracy.

A few things stuck out to me , let me cross paste sections of the different sources and then maybe we can make some observations.


Fizan Abdullah, the lead author and a pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins, said in a press statement about the study, “If you are a child without insurance, if you’re seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next town who has insurance.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/chld-o30.shtml

"The 60 percent is the theoretical difference, and the 37 percent is the actual difference that you see in real life," he said. "Our extrapolation is based on that more conservative number."
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/29/17000-child-deaths-linked-to-lack-of-insurance.html


Some 7.3 million children in the US lack health insurance, a substantial segment of the estimated 47 million uninsured Americans. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of insuring a family is over $13,000—more than double the costs of a decade ago and far out of reach for most working class families.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/29/17000-child-deaths-linked-to-lack-of-insurance.html

The uninsured rate for children has been rising steadily for two decades causing some lawmakers to fight for expansion of the public insurance to low-income kids through the Children Health Insurance Program, which President Obama signed into law earlier this year. Last year, the rate and the number of uninsured children dipped to their lowest since 1987. Still, advocates are quick to point out, some 7.3 million children lack insurance nationwide.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2009/10/health_insurance_and_child_dea.html

They compared the risk of death in hospitalized children who were covered by health insurance with those who did not, and found that uninsured kids were 60% more likely to die, regardless of their medical condition. This does not mean that the children received less aggressive care at the hospital but that they were probably in poorer health before the arrived, researchers said. Insurance status did not affect how long a child spent in the hospital, according to the study.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/uninsured-children-deaths.html

"CHIP has really worked and been very important and insures about 7 million kids in the country," Lesley said. Still, he said, roughly 6.5 million children who are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP remain uninsured -- for whatever reason.
Enrollment barriers are part of the problem, explained Lesley, whose organization endorses legislative proposals to move toward a "default enrollment" system. "The presumption should be the kid's enrolled, and let's figure out what program they're in," he said.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/29/17000-child-deaths-linked-to-lack-of-insurance.html

Over an 18-year period though 2005, 117 million children were hospitalized. Nearly 6 million kids were uninsured at the time of admission. In all, 38,649 children died while hospitalized.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/29/17000-child-deaths-linked-to-lack-of-insurance.html

( I wanted to look at the study of hospitalized children before and after 1997 and their insurance status but unfortunately I cannot directly access the journal, though I believe this is after CHIP mostly thus probably being more of a 12 year study) See below:

The study includes some data from the period before CHIP was enacted in 1997. Though fewer kids are uninsured today than two decades ago, Chang said, that would not skew the risk of death from lack of insurance.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/10/29/17000-child-deaths-linked-to-lack-of-insurance.htmlO.K. So what was the point of me looking into this seriously. I think the above quotes from the same study point out to us several very important factors to consider.

Let me list these graphs:

A biased but very informative one:
http://www.medicareforall.org/images/canada_and_us_percent_of_gnp.png
http://media.artdiamondblog.com/images2/HealthCareCostsGraph.jpg

So the graphs show that general costs for healthcare were actually cheaper in the U.S. in the 60s ( before 1964 to be exact) but then started to increase exponentially afterwords. The question is obvious. What happened in 1964?

Oh yeah, I remember :

Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)'s New Frontier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier). Johnson's success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) landslide in the 1964 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964) that brought in many new liberals to Congress. Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs have been eliminated or had their funding reduced, many of them, including Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29), Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid), and federal education funding, continue to the present. The Great Society's programs expanded under the administrations of Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) and Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#cite_note-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society


Food for thought? It is not difficult to see what kind of empirically based conclusions we can draw from this. Would it be a stretch to suggest that state initiatives in the healthcare industry could be responsible for exponentially rising costs?

Anyway the top quotes are important for several reasons:

A) CHIP. Most of these studies were done 'post CHIP' yet it is admitted that the amount of uninsured children has steadily risen since , significantly. The same professionals in the study confirm that 6-7 million children are not covered by any insurance however they are eligible for CHIP but have a tough time getting covered because of state bureaucracy. It seems to suggest that CHIP has failed at least 6 million children that could have possibly have been covered yet a solution is more money dumped into a program that refused , for whatever reasons , to cover 6 million eligible children already.

B) The uninsured children in the hospital did not receive any less treatment than those insured. The issue here is preventative medicine and barriers for people to obtain this vital service. The uninsured children were likely in later stages of their sickness and it probably could have been prevented by access to preventative care which is why I agree with the article in general. Expensive insurance ( never mind CHIP) seems correlated.

I was looking for a graph/chart specifically detailing the rising costs of doctors visits over the last 50yrs but after searching for a while I did not find what I was looking for ( I invite anyone to help with this?) However , finding evidence for causes of rising prices for doctors' visits can be done.

1) Limited supply of Doctors due to government restrictions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/01/business/01doctors.jpg
This is per thousand. Other nations with only a fraction of our population have a much healthier supply of doctors in proportion to their population naturally driving down costs.

2) Pharmaceutical privileges. Big Pharma has quasi-monopolies protected by the state and barriers for competition are high. Some crucial evidence is government policy like Drug Importation Acts. (http://keithlynch.net/les/doc8.html)

3) Insurance monopolies charging high prices as a result of government preferences and regulations.

4) Too many more reasons to list but I will overtime.

[Green Dragon]

This plan also forces you to buy insurance. Sure, you can pick the government plan, but only if you're in the restricted group of people that it's available too.


It forces people to purchase insurance due to the ban on denying insurance based upon pre-existing conditions.




First, it's only available to a small amount of the population:


Most Americans get their insurance through their employer. Generally, we don't have a choice as to what is offerred (although we are free to decline and purchase our own plan). The public option is available to everyone, but for practical purposes it means its the choice for the employer. The great expectation is that employers will simply dump their cirrent health insurance provider, and simply offer their employees only the public option.

[Green Dragon]

And really, I just can't tell one of the the 40 million+ who don't have insurance that they have to 'wait' until the right-wing in America gives them UHC. TBH, we'll probably see an anti-capitalist revolution before we see UHC with no precedent like a public option opening up the path a little bit.


The 40 million figure is highly misleading. It includes:

1. 9 million illegal aliens or legal aliens who will not be covered under any proposal.
2. Several million Americans who earn 300% above the poverty level, who for whatever reason, choose not to carry health insurance.
3. Several million who already are eligible for varous government health insurance programs, who for whatever reason are not enrolled.
4. There are only about five or six million people who would benefit from the proposals. At a cost of a trillion dollars and an upheaval in the healthcare system, America can do a lot better.
5. And what is truly amusing, is that it still will not have 100% coverage.

[Conquer or Die]

In my opinion it is ethical for you to be punished.

In my opinion, crying about paying taxes for healthcare is a lapse of ethics.

[Havet]

Well I've lived in continental Europe, Ireland and North America, and I would wager any amount that of all them places the working class were weakest in America. By a wide margin.

And anyway, Europe has had revolutions many times

The point was whether it had had many revolutions since the workers generally started getting a better life.

[Havet]

But every worker in Europe has much easier access to a far more comfortable lifestyle than the average American worker, but are still willing to go and strike and unionize.

I don't understand where you get this idea that Americans have such an easy life. American workers live shorter lives with more health problems than the European worker. American workers have a lower quality of life than European workers. American cities seem to be riddled with far more crime and pollution than most European cities. And yet, in spite of all this, and the absurd set up of welfare and social security and unemployment, American workers are, and have been for the past century if not more, the least conscious, the least militant, and the most backwards bunch of workers in the Western world.

There's are better pacifiers than universal healthcare and a good social security and welfare system, and they are crushing debt and being kept 3 weeks away from poverty at any given time.

Well my point was basically to argue the perceived notion that having a better safety net necessarily caused more workers to go out and strike and actually achieve meaningful changes.

I still don't see any evidence to assume that.


EDIT: Either way I understand what you're coming from. You'd prefer an independent, autonomous, community run sort of thing to deal with these problems rather than a government program

Not necessarily independent. I wouldn't mind if [the community] were co-dependent of other communities.

The main point I am against is the massive centralization of power and resources, whether done publicly or privately.

[Havet]

I was looking for a graph/chart specifically detailing the rising costs of doctors visits over the last 50yrs but after searching for a while I did not find what I was looking for ( I invite anyone to help with this?)

Here's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-26-poll-costs_N.htm) a survey

This (http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091006/OPINION02/910060316) might be of interest as well

[Dejavu]

Here's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-26-poll-costs_N.htm) a survey

This (http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091006/OPINION02/910060316) might be of interest as well

Thanks but those are not quite what I was looking for. Well, second link you posted was somewhat related to my point. I was looking for graphs/charts or some kind of data tracking doctor's visit costs for the last several decades.

[Dejavu]

The main point I am against is the massive centralization of power and resources, whether done publicly or privately.

Agreed. It is much easier for corrupt individuals to unjustly horde resources when there is a state because of externalized vs internalized costs. The elimination of a state won't prevent corrupt individuals from existing but it will not give them a crack powered tool to forcibly externalize costs. One simply needs to think about why the central bankers wanted to acquire and maintain their power by/through the state instead of without it. Such power would not be possible without it.

[Robert]

Such power would not be possible without it.

Would a stable currency be possible without it?


In the last decade of the eighteenth century the United States had just three banks but more than fifty different currencies in circulation: English, Spanish, French, Portuguese coinage, scrip issued by states, cities, backwood stores, and big city enterprises. The values of these currencies were wildly unstable, thereby making it a paradise for politically indifferent currency speculators thriving on uncertainty. In addition, the value and exchange rate was almost always outdated or unknown by the party agreeing to receive it, especially the farther it moved away from the coast; and because of distances, primitive roads, and absence of communications technology, values were not only unknown but unknowable as well. Speculators in the United States bought up bonds for about 15 cents and through Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton)'s plan were paid their face value of one dollar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

[Skooma Addict]

Would a stable currency be possible without it?

Yes, and free banking is much better than central banking. In a free banking system, the economy usually has something like gold or silver acting as a medium of exchange. Once the economy advances, then bank notes will most likely develop to become the main currency. The currency would be far more stable than it is now. As of now, the Central Bank can print money without worrying about the costs that a bank in the free banking system would need to take into account.

[Havet]

As of now, the Central Bank can print money without worrying about the costs that a bank in the free banking system would need to take into account.

And Olaf's opinion is corroborated by the data available

Here (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-8-fed-money-creation)

and Here (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-9-brief-history-us-money)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The point was whether it had had many revolutions since the workers generally started getting a better life.

Unless I'm missing something, didn't the worlds first welfare state have the most radical working class in the world?

[Havet]

Unless I'm missing something, didn't the worlds first welfare state have the most radical working class in the world?

The point was whether it had had many revolutions since the workers generally started getting a better life (aka welfare State)

[Dejavu]

Unless I'm missing something, didn't the worlds first welfare state have the most radical working class in the world?

They also had a working class willing to die for the state. I assume you're talking about Bismark's Germany?

[Dejavu]

Would a stable currency be possible without it?

Of course. In fact , I don't see how a stable currency is possible with it.

[IcarusAngel]

Ron Paul bashes the public option as evil social here:

1Hn6ad4_FzM

I'm going to do a double take on it again, there must be something good in there if he hates it that much.

Notice his conflating of corporatism with socialism, and free-speech with the free-market. Huh?????

Capitalism and socialism together doesn't work because socialism interferes with freedom? What? I think the data above actually shows otherwise.

His rantings on health care have even gotten some of his compliant youtube viewers speaking against him.