Originally Posted By: sinij
I still stand by my point that "true capitalism" isn't possible outside of very narrow controlled (lot of regulation, har har) circumstances. If left to its own Capitalism quickly turns into Cronyism or Corporatism due to interchangeable nature of wealth and power. Designing "Capitalistic systems (true Capitalism)" is as realistic assumption as building communism. Both assume unrealistic lack of "human factors" from its participants.

Derid, at some point you will come to realization that "true capitalism" is only possible in a tightly regulated environment where 'rules of the game' are rigidly defined and deviations and rule bending are heavily discouraged.
You mention an unrealistic lack of human factors being the cornerstone for true capitalism, but you've neglected to recognize that human flaws are what breaks down EVERY system. The same will be true in your socialist eutopia with the exception that in your dream society the people will have no way to repair the problem because not only do they have no say in the matter but you've also taken away their ability to defend themselves against an oppressive government (I'm assuming you're also against the 2nd amendment).

You seem to be working under the assumption that corruption only occurs in the private sector, or at the behest of the private sector. What happens when you get your way only to find that some animals are more equal than others? What happens to the people when they have no say in how things are run or who runs the government?

I'm sure you're already planning to attack my post as changing the subject. The health care market doesn't exist in a vacuum. You cannot make valid arguments related to health care without also addressing all of the ramifications of your plan. As Derid has tried to point out to you over and over and over again, you cannot know ALL of the impact that the change you're proposing (and we're all potentially faced with dependant upon the S.C. decision in June '12) will have but you can look around at similar systems that currently exist and you can measure a) their effectiveness b) their cost c) the impact for the populace d) their contribution to the medical community, and a whole host of other things that can help make an informed decision. Derid has pointed out many of the flaws of these sytems but I've yet to see you point out the benefits in a quantifiable way. To date you've only spouted platitudes about how much better it is in other countries, with a random bit of cherry picked data thrown in to make your claims look credible. Show us the unbiased report that takes into account the macro level impacts of this change and compares our current system to these other systems while taking into account the medical community contribution of each of the parties being compaired.

You're still hanging on to the idea that wealth = power = corruption, but you've failed to recognize that the only reason either of those things results in corruption is simple human nature. Call it greed if you want. You cannot devise a system devoid of humans (skynet isn't online yet) so you cannot yet create the uncorruptable system. Luckily for us our founders realized this and did their best to design a system that restricts government by the will of the people. Unfortunately, people have still managed to corrupt and misuse that system for their own gain, or because they naively believe they are smarter than everyone else and must seize power to force people to do what is best for them. What us "hick trogolodites" want is a return to that foundation so that we can make decisions for ourselves. I can only assume from your posts that you're one of those who believes that you know better what is good for me than I do and therefore must step in and save me from myself. How about we let nature take is course and let the chips fall where they may on an individual level?

You're probably going to notice that I've not argued the finer points of the discussion here, but that's because I've realized the futility of attempting such a debate. This, I believe, is the root problem with any debate between the two sides of the political spectrum. Those two sides cannot possibly have a discussion about something as localized as health care until they've come to some understanding over how the larger system must be run. There is simply no point in arguing the merits of either system of health care until we agree on some basic principles. If we are unable to come to some agreement then there is really nothing we can do but shake hands and agree to disagree because there is little enough that we will ever agree on to make any debate worthwhile. Now, if we can find some common ground perhaps we can work backwards from there, but so far I've not seen it. I don't know if you believe everything you say in here, but it seems like much of it is you playing devil's advocate and your actual views lie somewhere towards the center from your statements. If that's true perhaps there is some common ground.

For the record, that kind of stalemate is what I think the founders intended to keep the government from getting bloated.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]