RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Arpig -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/16/2006 5:39:53 PM)

Because conservatives aren't smart enough to realise the mess the world is in? Either that or maybe its because they know something the liberal types don't regarding escape pods buried under the polar ice-cap...Damn!!! I should not have mentioned that, now I will have to have you all shot, sorry.



dcnovice -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/16/2006 5:41:57 PM)

quote:

I don't believe either side has the Holy Grail of how to make society "better".


quote:

Throwing out things as "liberal" programs or "conservative " programs doesn't make a lot of sense, except in some isolated cases.



Agreed. FWIW and at the risk of repeating myself I'd go a step farther and say that liberal and conservative have become almost meaningless labels in American politics. Take abortion, for instance. Is it "conservative" to shift the locus of decision-making from the individual to the government? Is it "liberal" to accord the unborn human less protection than, say, the snail darter?



FirmhandKY -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/16/2006 6:03:26 PM)

Another point of agreement, dc.

If you notice, in most of my post, I use parens around both the terms "liberal" and "conservative", for that very reason.

And that also ties in to my statement to cloudboy about saying that many ideas of classical liberalism are part of the "conservative" moment of today.

I'm not sure why there is such a mix of beliefs, but I do know that it's really quite rare to find anyone who ascribes to ALL of what is suppose to be "conservative" or what is suppose to be "liberal", especially in the US.

I suspect it has something to do with the accelerating ability to locate information and news via differing technologies over the past 30 or 40 years.

Part of this change is also the "why" (I think) of the current situation of an almost evenly divided US, in elections.  I think that a myriad of differing beliefs are being forced into an either/or party system.

Not sure what (if anything) should be done about it.  Despite it's flaws, the two party system is pretty strongly ingrained in the American political system.  I'd hate for the US to end up with some system that ended up causing "legislative lock" as has happened in some countries with a proportional parlimentary system.

FirmKY



philosophy -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 2:52:07 PM)

"When did the NHS start? What was the history? What was the transition like? I remember when traveling there, the people said there was an option to take out some additional insurance policy which gave you access to a different level of service, is that the case"

.....NHS was a post-WW2 phenomena, part of creating a land fit for heroes, as the phrase of the day had it. The transition, like all transitions was rocky as i understand it...the big resistence coming from doctors signing up to the NHS for the benefits it gave them, but not liking the obligations incurred.
As for medical insurance, it is possible to 'go private' and take out your own health insurance....you can't opt out from the portion of tax that goes to the NHS, but private health insurance carries some tax breaks.....i'm not sure if this amounts to more or less than the tax.

The idea that a nationalised health service is good for business is nothing new.....another way of looking at it is the reduction in sick leave necessary, as preventative measures also become an NHS priority. i suppose it is one of those things that both liberal and conservatives can see the point of, unless they are ideologically opposed to centralisation. Perhaps the epithets, left and right wing more accurately describe the sides, as it were. Right wingers can't see where private profit is possible from an NHS, so oppose or neuter it. Left wingers wish to see a greater part of the state centralised, so their interest is obvious.

Hope this helps, Mercnbeth.




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 3:19:30 PM)

I just think any NHS would be run like every other National Program. Like Social Security for example. Social Security is just money down the drain, as that money put in the safest of investments would be better for the individual. NHS would be another lock box to be raided and bankrupted is the way I see it. Why anyone would think it would be different this time around is beyond me. Not to mention the possible implications of the government having a vested stake in your health. No to Big Brotherish for me.

I don't trust the government enough to manage health care, I'm suprised many would seeing the track record.



meatcleaver -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:13:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I just think any NHS would be run like every other National Program. Like Social Security for example. Social Security is just money down the drain, as that money put in the safest of investments would be better for the individual. NHS would be another lock box to be raided and bankrupted is the way I see it. Why anyone would think it would be different this time around is beyond me. Not to mention the possible implications of the government having a vested stake in your health. No to Big Brotherish for me.



American healthcare is far more financially inefficient than the British NHS. The bureaucracy of American healthcare is staggering. The average American pays twice as much as the average Brit for healthcare. Comparing like for like is difficult because quality of healthcare in the US depends on how deep your pockets are or how well insured you are where Brits have a more even service throughout the population.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:22:35 PM)

So THAT'S why conservatives are happier than liberals.

Whoda thunk it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quality of healthcare in the US depends on how deep your pockets are



popeye1250 -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:26:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I just think any NHS would be run like every other National Program. Like Social Security for example. Social Security is just money down the drain, as that money put in the safest of investments would be better for the individual. NHS would be another lock box to be raided and bankrupted is the way I see it. Why anyone would think it would be different this time around is beyond me. Not to mention the possible implications of the government having a vested stake in your health. No to Big Brotherish for me.

I don't trust the government enough to manage health care, I'm suprised many would seeing the track record.



Needto use, me neither.
I (do) think that the Taxpayers could finance and run a National Healthcare Plan without having the govt. "running" it though.
If you get the govt involved in the actual day to day operations of a National Healthcare Plan the next thing you know there's tens of thousands of people with "degrees" shuffling papers and not being able to make decisions and making $80k per year plus full benefits for what are basically secretarial jobs.
Also they'd be feathering their nests with layer upon layer of "managers."



meatcleaver -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:32:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I (do) think that the Taxpayers could finance and run a National Healthcare Plan without having the govt. "running" it though.
If you get the govt involved in the actual day to day operations of a National Healthcare Plan the next thing you know there's tens of thousands of people with "degrees" shuffling papers and not being able to make decisions and making $80k per year plus full benefits for what are basically secretarial jobs.
Also they'd be feathering their nests with layer upon layer of "managers."


Once the government gets into the day to day running of a health service it is fatal. Blair's government have put millions extra into the British NHS but couldn't keep out of the day to day running of it and has wasted the money instead of leaving the important decisions to the professionals who know what is needed at the point of service.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:35:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I just think any NHS would be run like every other National Program. Like Social Security for example. Social Security is just money down the drain, as that money put in the safest of investments would be better for the individual. NHS would be another lock box to be raided and bankrupted is the way I see it. Why anyone would think it would be different this time around is beyond me. Not to mention the possible implications of the government having a vested stake in your health. No to Big Brotherish for me.



American healthcare is far more financially inefficient than the British NHS. The bureaucracy of American healthcare is staggering. The average American pays twice as much as the average Brit for healthcare. Comparing like for like is difficult because quality of healthcare in the US depends on how deep your pockets are or how well insured you are where Brits have a more even service throughout the population.


My question would be what industry wouldn't be more efficient if a mandatory virtual monopoly were imposed. It's a given that any industry could be more efficient if there existed only one primary provider. Every government program cedes more control to the government. It's as simple as that. And given the US governments record for corruption and mismanagement, I'm in favor of no National Health Plan. Why not merge other areas necessary to live, like housing, electricity, and food distribution.  Similiar efficiencies in theory could be achieved there as well. I don't want those either. Why is health care any different.

edited to clarify slightly.



popeye1250 -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I (do) think that the Taxpayers could finance and run a National Healthcare Plan without having the govt. "running" it though.
If you get the govt involved in the actual day to day operations of a National Healthcare Plan the next thing you know there's tens of thousands of people with "degrees" shuffling papers and not being able to make decisions and making $80k per year plus full benefits for what are basically secretarial jobs.
Also they'd be feathering their nests with layer upon layer of "managers."


Once the government gets into the day to day running of a health service it is fatal. Blair's government have put millions extra into the British NHS but couldn't keep out of the day to day running of it and has wasted the money instead of leaving the important decisions to the professionals who know what is needed at the point of service.


Meat, I agree.
You just can't have govt. involved in something like that.
We could have them raise the tax money for it through sales taxes etc already in place but it should be run by a "People's" or "Citizens" organisation or turn it over to something like Blue Cross Blue Shield.
For what you'd be paying one college degreed worker $80-$100k in the govt. to do you could get 2-3 secretarys to do and a lot more efficiently, " more bang for the buck!"



meatcleaver -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 4:50:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I just think any NHS would be run like every other National Program. Like Social Security for example. Social Security is just money down the drain, as that money put in the safest of investments would be better for the individual. NHS would be another lock box to be raided and bankrupted is the way I see it. Why anyone would think it would be different this time around is beyond me. Not to mention the possible implications of the government having a vested stake in your health. No to Big Brotherish for me.



American healthcare is far more financially inefficient than the British NHS. The bureaucracy of American healthcare is staggering. The average American pays twice as much as the average Brit for healthcare. Comparing like for like is difficult because quality of healthcare in the US depends on how deep your pockets are or how well insured you are where Brits have a more even service throughout the population.


My question would be what industry wouldn't be more efficient if a mandatory virtual monopoly were imposed. It's a given that any industry could be more efficient if there existed only one primary provider. Every government program seeds more control to the government. It's as simple as that. And given the US governments record for corruption and mismanagement, I'm in favor of no National Health Plan. Why not merge other areas necessary to live, like housing, electricity, and food distribution.  Similiar efficiencies in theory could be achieved there as well. Why is health care any different.



Well many European states had virtual monopolies on utilities and transport such as trains but then came the conservative revolution in the eighties, the conservatives saying that privatisation would be more efficient and economical and lower prices. Well that little revolution turned out to be a load of bollocks, private companies couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and we now pay more for all our utilities and transport because everything is so fucking inefficient and the shareholders cream of necessary investment money as profits. France however which refused to relinquish control to private companies have state of the art railway and utilities which are more efficient than the privitized ones in other European countries. Where privatisation worked was in the telecom industries and airlines which go across borders and have to quickly respond to new technologies and changing markets. But everything in borders has been a catastrophe and hurts the pocket in a major way. It pisses me off and many other people off that we pay private companies far more for inferior services. This is why the majority of Brits don't want private companies anywhere near the NHS because they know they will get an inferior service for more money, private companies have already proved that.



popeye1250 -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 5:02:19 PM)

It obviously wouldn't work in the U.S. with a "for profit" private company either.
I think we'd need to set up a different type of model that excludes both the govt and big business.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 5:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver



Well many European states had virtual monopolies on utilities and transport such as trains but then came the conservative revolution in the eighties, the conservatives saying that privatisation would be more efficient and economical and lower prices. Well that little revolution turned out to be a load of bollocks, private companies couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and we now pay more for all our utilities and transport because everything is so fucking inefficient and the shareholders cream of necessary investment money as profits. France however which refused to relinquish control to private companies have state of the art railway and utilities which are more efficient than the privitized ones in other European countries. Where privatisation worked was in the telecom industries and airlines which go across borders and have to quickly respond to new technologies and changing markets. But everything in borders has been a catastrophe and hurts the pocket in a major way. It pisses me off and many other people off that we pay private companies far more for inferior services. This is why the majority of Brits don't want private companies anywhere near the NHS because they know they will get an inferior service for more money, private companies have already proved that.


It's doubtful we will agree here. In my way of thinking is what France in your example did, was permanently bar anyone from opening a business in those areas of industry. Permanently placing anyone interested in that field to be a hourly worker instead of a possible owner innovator.  Don't know I think it's a sad state of affairs when the government bars people from owning businesses that deal in legal commodities or services.

I've never viewed the government as a substitute for industry, my view it is supposed to monitor industry not be industry.

Simple difference of thinking, I guess. But I'm not disagreeing about the possible efficiencies, sure of course it can be more efficient and it would be hard not to be in the short term. But at what cost, less or no choice, less motivation to innovate.








meatcleaver -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 5:35:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

It's doubtful we will agree here. In my way of thinking is what France in your example did, was permanently bar anyone from opening a business in those areas of industry. Permanently placing anyone interested in that field to be a hourly worker instead of a possible owner innovator.  Don't know I think it's a sad state of affairs when the government bars people from owning businesses that deal in legal commodities or services.



I guess we do have ideological differences here. I think there is a place for private industry but also a play for state industries. Britain has privatised its railways and that has been a disaster and other European countries seeing what has happened to the British railway system have given an emphatic no thanks. After all, how can different companies compete on a single railway system? The same with other utilities. Those countries with a central planned systems function better. They are after all providing services and not commodities that need to compete and succeed in an open market. A government can't let an electricity or water utility fail so any private company has essentially a government safety net and will inevitably become bloated and inefficient and why should tax pay for shareholder dividends or private mismanagement?



cloudboy -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 6:26:19 PM)

quote:

Well many European states had virtual monopolies on utilities and transport such as trains but then came the conservative revolution in the eighties, the conservatives saying that privatisation would be more efficient and economical and lower prices. Well that little revolution turned out to be a load of bollocks, private companies couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and we now pay more for all our utilities and transport because everything is so fucking inefficient and the shareholders cream of necessary investment money as profits. France however which refused to relinquish control to private companies have state of the art railway and utilities which are more efficient than the privitized ones in other European countries. Where privatisation worked was in the telecom industries and airlines which go across borders and have to quickly respond to new technologies and changing markets. But everything in borders has been a catastrophe and hurts the pocket in a major way. It pisses me off and many other people off that we pay private companies far more for inferior services. This is why the majority of Brits don't want private companies anywhere near the NHS because they know they will get an inferior service for more money, private companies have already proved that.


What's a railway system?

No, seriously, you make an excellent point here.

The Russians got just about everything (agriculture, manufacturing, allocation of resources, prices) wrong in a really bad economic system, but its public transportation system (subways, trains, trams, buses, trolley buses, & electrichkas) remains excellent. Back in the day, the subway used to be just five (5) kopeks. Now kopeks have done disappeared.

Except for maybe New Yorkers, Americans can't even envision life or a lifestyle divorced from the automobile.

Long live the libertarian and conservative smog producing, nerve exasperating traffic jam.

"Free enterprise" helped destoy the American railway system.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/17/2006 6:31:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver



I guess we do have ideological differences here. I think there is a place for private industry but also a play for state industries. Britain has privatised its railways and that has been a disaster and other European countries seeing what has happened to the British railway system have given an emphatic no thanks. After all, how can different companies compete on a single railway system? The same with other utilities. Those countries with a central planned systems function better. They are after all providing services and not commodities that need to compete and succeed in an open market. A government can't let an electricity or water utility fail so any private company has essentially a government safety net and will inevitably become bloated and inefficient and why should tax pay for shareholder dividends or private mismanagement?


Hrmmm, well I don't see the point of replacing one government railway with one private railway.  Or one government electric provider with one private provider. I don't know how things work in Europe but we have more than one train company here, and they use the same tracks they just charge when another uses their tracks. And there is generally one electric company for any given city or region and there rates are subject to the government to some degree, the grid is connected in a few sections so it doesn't go down if a small section does.

Maybe it has to do with how small european countries are, really each of them is about the size of a few US state thereabouts. I guess maybe in France for example there isn't room for two or ten providers, perhaps. Who knows, but doing that over here would be like all of western Europe or most of it being forced under one Universal Provider.







NorthernGent -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/18/2006 9:04:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I (do) think that the Taxpayers could finance and run a National Healthcare Plan without having the govt. "running" it though.
If you get the govt involved in the actual day to day operations of a National Healthcare Plan the next thing you know there's tens of thousands of people with "degrees" shuffling papers and not being able to make decisions and making $80k per year plus full benefits for what are basically secretarial jobs.
Also they'd be feathering their nests with layer upon layer of "managers."


Once the government gets into the day to day running of a health service it is fatal. Blair's government have put millions extra into the British NHS but couldn't keep out of the day to day running of it and has wasted the money instead of leaving the important decisions to the professionals who know what is needed at the point of service.


You have to put the NHS and British public services in their context and that context is nigh on 50 years of neglect. For all of Blair's/this current administrations failings they can not be charged with wasting millions on the NHS. The reason being, the benefit of this investment will take decades to come to fruition due to the previous years of neglect.

Personally, I do not believe there is a group of people or Government on this planet who are capable of turning around the fortunes of British public services in a 9 year period.



popeye1250 -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/18/2006 9:16:53 AM)

Well, I don't think that most people in the U.S. would disagree that we do have a need for some type of NHS.
With 45 million U.S. Citizens without healthcare in this country and growing, we need to do something.



NorthernGent -> RE: Why are conservatives happier than liberals? (11/18/2006 9:38:13 AM)

Popeye, I would agree. There is something seriously distasteful about the concept of treatment based on the ability to pay. In civilised countries it is a concept left behind in the 19th century.

How you actually get there is merely the tool to support the concept. In my opinion, private charity can never satisfy universal healthcare. You need a Government to administer universal healthcare and to elect such a Government you need a people prepared to accept the democratic social principle that society and its people have a duty to care for all of its citizens. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the US style of social policy is steeped in a survival of the fittest mentality. The wealth gap in the US is the highest in the developed world - either you are prepared to pressure your Government to redistribute wealth towards the poorest socio-economic groups or you are not. Private charity is a drop in the ocean of what is required so talking about this is as the answer is merely paying lip service to the issue. If you really want universal healthcare then you need to pressure your Government to redirect your tax dollars and rein in the multi-nationals who's top level employees are rolling in money while the US hides its third world areas in the closet.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02