Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

[conv3rsion]

How can you guys not logically extrapolate the data out in your heads to realize that a socialist system is always going to be less efficient and higher priced than a competitive system? It just freaking amazes me. Is it really that hard to run both systems in your head and see which one makes the most sense? Is it really that hard to read the history of both sides and see which one is the clear winner? It just amazes me how stupid people really are, even on this forum, and how religiously they will protect that stupidity. Sit down in a quiet room, read a book on both sides, think about it honestly and objectively, and discover which one will make the lives of everyone better at the lower cost.

Here's the problem sir. People do not want to live in a world based on serving all of their needs using pure market based capitalism because they recognize that efficiency != access. They want to live in one where everyone gets access to minimal security, basic education, and health care regardless of means. They want to live in one where the state has a role (perhaps limited) to provide these things. They are willing to make a trade off in terms of some possible efficiency in cost for greater access. And in representative democracy, thats how things work.

A significant purely market based Anarcho capitalist society does not exist on planet earth anywhere. Some of you may think it would be utopia. I don't, I think a world with medicare and food stamps is better, however less efficient those programs might be at the present time. This is not to stay that I appreciate the state influenced Frankenstein monsters that our housing market, education, and health care systems have become (instead I wish for better systems like those I see in other countries).

Yet I know people who make use of these services, and I know how little they have and how little they get from them. I think in envisioning your Utopia you have lacked the imagination to consider the side effects that the society would suffer as a result of not having a state based safety net. Your security costs would be sky high, and walking through the cities would be a lot less fun. Regardless though, all you can do is imagine this society BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE. If you want to go build your floating islands I wish you all the best. I will be expecting said islands to be overtaken by pirates very quickly.

The market HAS NOT served everyone well. Bill Gates has devoted his massive fortune to getting low cost drugs to developing nations. Until he began that work, millions more people died from diseases that have been wiped in industrial nations. He said that he was surprised how poorly the market served these people. You should not have to die an easily preventable death solely because you did not win the birth lottery, believing that you should makes you an asshole.

On the topic at hand, since the first response will be about "forcing people to provide services", taxation (that which makes it so the services are provided freely) is not theft. Theft involves taking property involuntarily. You can freely opt out anytime of all of your local societal obligations, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your voluntary residence in "insert your country here" is a voluntary agreement on your part to submit to the laws of "insert your country here". Therefore taxation is not theft.

 

[Moxie]

It costs so much because of Socialism...

There are much lower prices everywhere else on earth. Many of these countries have less competition and more government involvement. Therefore we cannot solely blame those two things for high prices. Obesity rates in the US would be another contributing factor, for example.

I'm having deja vu, lol.

The market HAS NOT served everyone well. Bill Gates has devoted his massive fortune to getting low cost drugs to developing nations.

How much of Bill Gates fortune came from forced taxation?

Until he began that work, millions more people died from diseases that have been wiped in industrial nations. He said that he was surprised how poorly the market served these people.

Did he specifically say "market", and if so don't you think he believes that the governments and such in those nations are at least somewhat responsible for problems with those markets?

On the topic at hand, since the first response will be about "forcing people to provide services", taxation (that which makes it so the services are provided freely) is not theft. Theft involves taking property involuntarily. You can freely opt out anytime of all of your local societal obligations, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your voluntary residence in "insert your country here" is a voluntary agreement on your part to submit to the laws of "insert your country here". Therefore taxation is not theft.

Please tell me where I can go where a government or warlords acting as government will not demand something from me? You do realise that the US government will want to collect taxes even from moon colonies?

 

[lukep]

Here's the problem sir. People do not want to live in a world based on serving all of their needs using pure market based capitalism because they recognize that efficiency != access.

Congratulations; this is the very best argument I've heard against the free market to date. Very perceptive of you.

Still not convincing me tho.

They want to live in one where everyone gets access to minimal security, basic education, and health care regardless of means. They want to live in one where the state has a role (perhaps limited) to provide these things. They are willing to make a trade off in terms of some possible efficiency in cost for greater access. And in representative democracy, thats how things work.

Just because they are not educated enough to understand a better system does not make their system better.

A significant purely market based Anarcho capitalist society does not exist on planet earth anywhere. Some of you may think it would be utopia. I don't, I think a world with medicare and food stamps is better, however less efficient those programs might be at the present time.

You're only showing a lack of education in Economics here. But Any smart person will be happy to tell you Utopia can never exist as long as two humans occupy the same plain of existence.

What Anarcho-Capitalists are hoping for is the next level up in Freedom... Something not yet obtained but theoretically very possible.

IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE. If you want to go build your floating islands I wish you all the best. I will be expecting said islands to be overtaken by pirates very quickly.

It doesn't exist because man-killing, tax-collecting, Jealous governments INFECT every last inch of the dry land on this planet, clearly standing in the way.

The market HAS NOT served everyone well.

Is it not possible that the markets in your suppositions were forced to live under/cooperate with some kind of governments could have possibly tried to regulate them in some way? Hmm?

Theft involves taking property involuntarily. You can freely opt out anytime of all of your local societal obligations, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your voluntary residence in "insert your country here" is a voluntary agreement on your part to submit to the laws of "insert your country here". Therefore taxation is not theft.

Jesus H Christ. Why don't you just wander into a NAACP meeting and shout: "N*GGERS GET ALL THE GOOD SHIT! WHITE PEOPLE NEVER GET A FAIR SHARE!"

Were you expecting to make friends with that last trollish comment? Because it's just going to really piss off the people in here (including myself) that have tried to "opt out" and are finding it very difficult. The USA, more than most governments, doesn't like to give up all of your tax monies that easily.

 

[guerilla]

Here's the problem sir. People do not want to live in a world based on serving all of their needs using pure market based capitalism because they recognize that efficiency != access.

Which people do you speak for?

They want to live in one where everyone gets access to minimal security, basic education, and health care regardless of means. They want to live in one where the state has a role (perhaps limited) to provide these things. They are willing to make a trade off in terms of some possible efficiency in cost for greater access. And in representative democracy, thats how things work.

Who does the democracy represent if people like Slayerment and I would rather do our own thing?

Do you feel that those "people" you refer to, which clearly do not indicate some of the people in this thread, have a right to demand we comply with their wishes?

A significant purely market based Anarcho capitalist society does not exist on planet earth anywhere.

And this is relevant why?

Some of you may think it would be utopia.

Who? Name them please.

I don't, I think a world with medicare and food stamps is better, however less efficient those programs might be at the present time.

Why do you think it is better? Everyone has an opinion, what is interesting is to see people substantiate their opinions with facts based in reality.

I think in envisioning your Utopia you have lacked the imagination to consider the side effects that the society would suffer as a result of not having a state based safety net.

We didn't have state safety nets for thousands of years. The so-called safety net, which is insolvent in EVERY WESTERN NATION, is less than 100 years old.

Also, I will ask again, which utopia are you referring to? Who is here is a Utopian and why?

The market HAS NOT served everyone well.

It is not supposed to. Remember, I am not a Utopian. I don't think everyone can be served well. I only think everyone can be served fairly.

You should not have to die an easily preventable death solely because you did not win the birth lottery, believing that you should makes you an asshole.

So we all have a right to be born the same?

On the topic at hand, since the first response will be about "forcing people to provide services", taxation (that which makes it so the services are provided freely) is not theft.

This is an assertion, let's break down your proof.

Theft involves taking property involuntarily.

That is what taxation is. If you don't pay, the IRS comes and takes away your property and possibly your liberty and if you try to defend your property and liberty, likely take away your life.

It's what a highwayman or mugger does, but they have badges and uniforms. Basically the same routine.

You can freely opt out anytime of all of your local societal obligations, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

So along the same lines, being mugged is not theft because people can opt out of walking down the street? And because we voluntarily walk down the street, then mugging is part of our "societal obligations"?

From where did these "societal obligations" come from? Who created them? Who controls them? Who interprets them, and most importantly (cui bono) who benefits from them?

Your voluntary residence in "insert your country here" is a voluntary agreement on your part to submit to the laws of "insert your country here".

This is called the love it or leave it argument, and has nothing to do with taxes. This is a deeper question I am quite sure you're not prepared to take on.

Who owns the country?

Therefore taxation is not theft.

You never actually proved this. You asserted it, and then you tried to equivocate taxes with voluntary agreements when they are not voluntary at all. Your compliance is mandatory.

 

[jdomaha]

Yes, because your parents never told you to share either.

Your parents were instilling values that were hopefully measured by a bit of common sense.

Sharing isn't sharing if you're getting your property taken from you by the threat of force. Sharing is a gesture of kindness, not an obligation brought on by guilt or threats.

 

[RoughOutline]

 

[jdomaha]

Here's the problem sir. People do not want to live in a world based on serving all of their needs using pure market based capitalism because they recognize that efficiency != access. They want to live in one where everyone gets access to minimal security, basic education, and health care regardless of means. They want to live in one where the state has a role (perhaps limited) to provide these things. They are willing to make a trade off in terms of some possible efficiency in cost for greater access. And in representative democracy, thats how things work.

It works for now. Poorly. When it collapses, society in general will pay for what it spent in the past. And it will be a bitter payment indeed.

A significant purely market based Anarcho capitalist society does not exist on planet earth anywhere. Some of you may think it would be utopia. I don't, I think a world with medicare and food stamps is better, however less efficient those programs might be at the present time. This is not to stay that I appreciate the state influenced Frankenstein monsters that our housing market, education, and health care systems have become (instead I wish for better systems like those I see in other countries).

State run institutions will inevitably become Frankenstein monsters. Self-perpetuating institutions that exist to do nothing but consolidate their own power and expand their services to the maximum will, in time, collapse under their own weight. Just because we are fortunate enough to live in a house that hasn't collapsed under its own weight yet doesn't mean we are living in a house that will last.

Yet I know people who make use of these services, and I know how little they have and how little they get from them. I think in envisioning your Utopia you have lacked the imagination to consider the side effects that the society would suffer as a result of not having a state based safety net. Your security costs would be sky high, and walking through the cities would be a lot less fun. Regardless though, all you can do is imagine this society BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE. If you want to go build your floating islands I wish you all the best. I will be expecting said islands to be overtaken by pirates very quickly.

Security costs wouldn't be sky high. Security costs are sky high right now in the United States because government is providing it. In the many instances where the government has withdrawn from the security providing business (parts of Detroit, for example), people are getting better services through private businesses who step into the market that was created as a result.

The market HAS NOT served everyone well. Bill Gates has devoted his massive fortune to getting low cost drugs to developing nations. Until he began that work, millions more people died from diseases that have been wiped in industrial nations. He said that he was surprised how poorly the market served these people. You should not have to die an easily preventable death solely because you did not win the birth lottery, believing that you should makes you an asshole.

Believing that I should have my property taken from me to ensure that 10 Somalians receive their AIDS medication makes you an asshole.

On the topic at hand, since the first response will be about "forcing people to provide services", taxation (that which makes it so the services are provided freely) is not theft. Theft involves taking property involuntarily. You can freely opt out anytime of all of your local societal obligations, and please don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your voluntary residence in "insert your country here" is a voluntary agreement on your part to submit to the laws of "insert your country here". Therefore taxation is not theft.

Logic like this is why midnight advertorials work so well.

 

[pixelo]

State run institutions will inevitably become Frankenstein monsters. Self-perpetuating institutions that exist to do nothing but consolidate their own power and expand their services to the maximum will, in time, collapse under their own weight. Just because we are fortunate enough to live in a house that hasn't collapsed under its own weight yet doesn't mean we are living in a house that will last.

No, healthcare systems in the UK, OZ, Canada, France etc are partially or totally state run and deliver a better overall service, for less than the US corporate alternative. They pay less per taxpayer and less as a percentage of GDP than the bloated corporate system in the states. Not sure why turkeys enjoy voting for Christmas so much.

There are plenty of examples of industries that have turned to shit when handed over to corporations who face no real competition and basically fuck the consumer for maximum profits, e.g. look at the railway systems in Europe. France has a state run rail system with a high speed 300kmh network which is cheap and efficient, the UK privatised train operators to allow "competition". Theres no high speed trains in the UK, several rail crashes due to negligence, the prices are eye wateringly expensive, but the heads of the rail companies make massive bonuses each year on top of fat corporate profits.

Private enterprise is awesome and can be very efficient, but if you hand what should be a public service corporations will sit on massive revenue streams and fuck the general public to make money.

 

[-joe-]

Regardless though, all you can do is imagine this society BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE.

You're wrong about this part. It does exist. Look at most of Africa. Nice place to live, right?

 

[JakeStratham]

You're wrong about this part. It does exist. Look at most of Africa. Nice place to live, right?

Are you referring to kritarchy? If so, are you familiar with how it works (the wiki entry is little more than a placeholder)? If you are familiar with kritarchy, I hope you are not conflating it with these guys:

If you are not referring to the system of kritarchy, what are you talking about? Let's see how much you know.

 

[slayerment]

No, healthcare systems in the UK, OZ, Canada, France etc are partially or totally state run and deliver a better overall service, for less than the US corporate alternative. They pay less per taxpayer and less as a percentage of GDP than the bloated corporate system in the states. Not sure why turkeys enjoy voting for Christmas so much.

That's like saying Obama is better than Bush. Just because one may be better or worse in certain areas doesn't change the fact that they're both still pieces of shit. There is still a better system than both of them. It's called the free market.

Furthermore, the system in the US is bloated because of government. If there was less government involvement people like me would be able to enter the market without having to go through thousands of government hoops first. Prices go down and quality goes up in the free market. This is why technology gets cheaper and better each year. The same would be said about medicine if government wasn't involved. It's government, not corporations. Yes, corporations lobby government, but without braindead sheeple voting in socialism there wouldn't be any government for corporations to lobby to enforce their monopoly over medicine.

There are plenty of examples of industries that have turned to shit when handed over to corporations who face no real competition and basically fuck the consumer for maximum profits, e.g. look at the railway systems in Europe. France has a state run rail system with a high speed 300kmh network which is cheap and efficient, the UK privatised train operators to allow "competition". Theres no high speed trains in the UK, several rail crashes due to negligence, the prices are eye wateringly expensive, but the heads of the rail companies make massive bonuses each year on top of fat corporate profits.

Private enterprise is awesome and can be very efficient, but if you hand what should be a public service corporations will sit on massive revenue streams and fuck the general public to make money.

It's not possible for a corporation to fuck the consumer. The consumer fucks themself. Nobody is forcing the consumer to ever participate in a commercial transaction with a corporation -- the consumer chooses to. If the consumer doesn't like the business they don't have to give them their money. If the consumer doesn't trust the business they don't have to give them their money. If there isn't a business doing the job right the consumer can fund or start their own business that does the job right. If the consumer is just too stupid to start a business to fill the need somebody else will because there will be a profit incentive. If there isn't a profit incentive then it's probably something that isn't needed. If you think it is needed even though there's no market invest your own damn money, not mine.

The same can not be said about the government. If I don't like the way government handles things I still have to pay them my money. I still have to reward them and encourage them to do a bad job because I am not allowed to give my money to somebody else who does a better job. The government is a monopoly. If anybody fucks the consumer it is the government. Even if I know they're fucking me and I don't want to play ball I still have to. So if you're mad about being fucked then you should render your energy to the true cause.

 

[guerilla]

France has a state run rail system with a high speed 300kmh network which is cheap and efficient, the UK privatised train operators to allow "competition".

France is also bankrupt. So is the UK.

Private enterprise is awesome and can be very efficient, but if you hand what should be a public service corporations will sit on massive revenue streams and fuck the general public to make money.

What should be a public service?

Are iPods a public service? Is telecommunications a public service?

Is the production of food and clothing a public service?

Can you name any large companies that fuck the "general public" (an empty, meaningless label if there ever was one) to make a lot of money?

Apple? McDonalds? Amazon?

You're wrong about this part. It does exist. Look at most of Africa. Nice place to live, right?

Oh look, some idiot brought up Africa again.

Let's see how much you know.

That will be a short conversation. It's -joe-. I can't remember the last time he made a post worth paying attention to.




@tencentpiece, are you going to answer my questions after I answered yours? I'm not letting you off the hook so easily after you made a fuss about getting a response, which Luke and I obliged.

 

[blogspotter]

Please leave -joe- alone...

 

[guerilla]

Please leave -joe- alone...

People who say stupid things should be challenged.

 

[blogspotter]

Don't tell me that I didn't warn you... he never relents, and will keep replying... and every time it will eat away a bit of your brain. There I warned you.

 

[jacky8]

Letting profit driven corporations drive everything is suicidal.

If you think it is not, you need to see the practical world, not just swear by unproven theories while sitting in a part of the world where you don't realize the good things around you - you focus on only the bad ones.

Also, in any modern society, everyone should be assured of minimum healthcare. Bet you've never seen people dying of cancer because no one helped them, and because some corporations are running polluting industries in the area.

When you dislike something, often a nasty strategy is to reject the whole system altogether because it is like bargaining where you start at 100% rejection and manage to pull the deal at a lower %age

inb4 nasty comments
inb4 arguments with unheard synonyms pulled from dictionary
inb4 being called idiot when a point can't be proven

 

[guerilla]

Letting profit driven corporations drive everything is suicidal.

Why?

Also, in any modern society, everyone should be assured of minimum healthcare.

How would you assure it? How would you provide it?

What is "minimum care"?

 

[jacky8]

Letting profit driven corporations drive everything is suicidal.

Why?

Profit driven corporations can't be expected to drive judicial system, law enforcement, etc. Ideally, role of the government should be as a facilitator and to ensure that businesses, citizens, etc. are all being "fair". As to what constitutes "fairness" I don't think we can all define it here.

When you compare the government with the supposed anarcho-capitalist (or whatever) society, you should either compare them ideally or practically. Currently, you are seeing the practical government vs your *ideal* society which doesn't even make for a fair comparison.

Also, in any modern society, everyone should be assured of minimum healthcare.

How would you assure it? How would you provide it?

What is "minimum care"?

I'm not at all for free-loading, not even for giving free money when people don't *want* to work, but free healthcare serves a noble purpose to ensure poor people don't die of sickness.

What we see as "minimum care" may be worth debating though.

 

[guerilla]

Profit driven corporations can't be expected to drive judicial system, law enforcement, etc

Why?

Ideally, role of the government should be as a facilitator and to ensure that businesses, citizens, etc. are all being "fair". As to what constitutes "fairness" I don't think we can all define it here.

So you're saying the role of government should be to ensure fairness, but you can't define what fairness is. Do I have that right?

When you compare the government with the supposed anarcho-capitalist (or whatever) society, you should either compare them ideally or practically.

I don't understand the distinction. I am simply talking about basic technological tools like morality and free exchange.

Currently, you are seeing the practical government vs your *ideal* society which doesn't even make for a fair comparison.

Why?

I'm not at all for free-loading, not even for giving free money when people don't *want* to work, but free healthcare serves a noble purpose to ensure poor people don't die of sickness.

So you won't give people free food but you will give them free healthcare? Why the distinction?

Why is sickness worse than starvation?

The reason why we do not have mass starvation in the world anymore, although it was the paradigm for most of humanity's time on earth, is the evolution of markets. Governments are less involved in food than they are in medicine.

What we see as "minimum care" may be worth debating though.

You just avoided giving yet another answer after you posted an absolute.

That's not a good way to debate.

J: "We must fight against all evil!"

G: "What is evil?"

J: "Well, we need to talk about it."

I'm going to ask you a serious question and it is not intended to be insulting.

When you post stuff like that and I point out that you're asserting things without detail or facts, does it bother you, or do you just not care too much and carry on with the discussion in the same mode?

The reason I ask, is that almost all of us have the same fundamental goals. We all want to see humanity prosper, grow and thrive. We differ on the methods to get there. I try to explain my positions, the thinking, the methodology and expose logic. Sometimes I fail, but I do try.

A lot of you assert things without ever offering an explanation why such a thing might be true. When asked to explain it, those same people get quiet or hand wave at the question.

I would like to win people to my POV through logic and reason, but it is very hard when people don't tend to employ logic in their arguments.

 

[pixelo]

France is also bankrupt. So is the UK.

News to me...and also complete nonsense.

You also seem to be inferring that your imagined bankruptcy is due to state provided healthcare, which is ridiculous.

What should be a public service?

Are iPods a public service? Is telecommunications a public service?

Is the production of food and clothing a public service?

Public transport, public health, defence, legal system. Theres no (or tiny chance of) competition, if I want to take a train to another city and the service is shit and expensive, I cant choose a different train. Millions of people are going to take a train because they have to, its a public service that people have to use.

iPods - facetious suggestion.

Can you name any large companies that fuck the "general public" (an empty, meaningless label if there ever was one) to make a lot of money?

Apple? McDonalds? Amazon?

Many companies do some good things, business can be innovative and efficient.

But they also fuck people for profit too:

BP

Monsanto

Union carbide (bhopal)

Multinational oil companies in Nigeria letting oil flow into villages as theres no regulatory oversight to stop them fucking people with no democratic or financial power to stop it.

Insurance companies in America choosing profit over peoples health.

Broadband companies / ISPs that only give 1mb connection in areas where they have become the only provider as the free market hasn't created any competitors.

Hundreds of examples.

Business is good, making money is good, but you cant just be an asshat and say "Im not part of society and taking tax is mean".

The refrain seems to be that you find it unfair that you are forced to pay tax without agreeing to it when you were born. Well you're also forced to drive on a particular side of the road - you never agreed to that either. You were also taught English as your first language and are forced (with the threat of violence as you keep saying!) to wear clothes in public. According to your logic none of these societal rules are legitimate either?