Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
K9Buck

Single-payer healthcare opinion

432 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029
6 hours ago, toast said:

You missed the context of my post.

aztek misses a lot.

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

 

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

I'm trying to think how one would go about privatizing a hydro-electric dam, especially in western United States.  The govt did it by building irrigation systems into the reservoirs, keeping the farmers happy, using peer pressure to persuade the recalcitrant ones.  But water in a container is privately owned, even if that container is just a hole in the ground.  You need the owner's permission to use his water.  A river big enough to generate power has thousands of owners, each with veto power over your dam.  You have to buy them out or otherwise obtain permission.  Last I heard, water was going for about $4 per acre-foot.

Doug

State ownership means that the majority share holder is the Government.

What normally happens is that each Government imposes KPIs onto them aligned with Government policy. Privatising them means the public become the majority share holder (or the complete shareholder) and then the objectives of the business are set by its shareholders at AGMs. KPIs then filter down from those.

The only difficulties are when a union is established in a state owned business because they resist privatisation. Once privatised they often create further problems because they expect the same lush salaries for their workers while the business needs to keep its wages down. When Thatcher privatised a load here in the 80s the unions in them meant that they went bust because they resisted change. Ultimately the unions priced their host companies out of the market demanding the same 10% to 20% wage rises year on year.

I am not actually against state owned businesses for ideological reasons. If economically the company would do better under state ownership rather than private then they should be left alone. In terms of service the NHS in the UK is bad with typical waiting times before treatment being 5 hours. That is not the fault of the current Government or the banking crises, it has always been the same for decades.

Not having a privatised healthcare sector means that the hospitals cannot become multi-billion pound entities making profits for their shareholders. While some point to the NHS being cheaper than private healthcare the boost to the nations economy would mean a doubling or even tripling of our national GDP. As a result most of the population would be able to afford healthcare from the boost to their incomes.

Free healthcare should only be given to the unemployed, the retired, the disabled, and other people that cannot work. And if they are on a low income salary there is no reason why they cannot receive a healthcare benefit to cover them (means tested of course) rather than the UK public having to fund the £134 billion the NHS currently costs a year.

In fact, there is no reason why they cannot privatise the NHS creating 66 million shares and given out one to each member of the population so that they get the extra income. from dividends and share trading. The healthcare sector here would quickly grow to £500 billion in value with profits going to people who can then spend them in the economy. And around and around the multiplier effect goes giving us a huge boost to our GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

aren't power companies in usa private businesses? yes they are.  you pay your electric bill to a private company,  you do not buy power from gvmnt even thou it owns dams and nuclear power stations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
5 minutes ago, aztek said:

aren't power companies in usa private businesses? yes they are.  you pay your electric bill to a private company,  you do not buy power from gvmnt even thou it owns dams and nuclear power stations

Who does the power company buy its power from?  That's right - a government owned generating plant.

Actually, your local power company buys its power from the grid, a company that buys power from a variety of sources and combines them on a system of power lines.  It is the grid that actually buys power from the government-owned plants.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Who does the power company buy its power from?  That's right - a government owned generating plant.

Actually, your local power company buys its power from the grid, a company that buys power from a variety of sources and combines them on a system of power lines.  It is the grid that actually buys power from the government-owned plants.

Doug

But in the southwest I don't know of any large plants that are government owned.  Some rural areas have co-ops that the people in the area own together, and in some areas the plants are owned by one company or a few investor companies, one big one being PNM, which put in the nuclear plant and owns sever coal plants. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
24 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

 

State ownership means that the majority share holder is the Government.

What normally happens is that each Government imposes KPIs onto them aligned with Government policy. Privatising them means the public become the majority share holder (or the complete shareholder) and then the objectives of the business are set by its shareholders at AGMs. KPIs then filter down from those.

The only difficulties are when a union is established in a state owned business because they resist privatisation. Once privatised they often create further problems because they expect the same lush salaries for their workers while the business needs to keep its wages down. When Thatcher privatised a load here in the 80s the unions in them meant that they went bust because they resisted change. Ultimately the unions priced their host companies out of the market demanding the same 10% to 20% wage rises year on year.

I am not actually against state owned businesses for ideological reasons. If economically the company would do better under state ownership rather than private then they should be left alone. In terms of service the NHS in the UK is bad with typical waiting times before treatment being 5 hours. That is not the fault of the current Government or the banking crises, it has always been the same for decades.

Not having a privatised healthcare sector means that the hospitals cannot become multi-billion pound entities making profits for their shareholders. While some point to the NHS being cheaper than private healthcare the boost to the nations economy would mean a doubling or even tripling of our national GDP. As a result most of the population would be able to afford healthcare from the boost to their incomes.

Free healthcare should only be given to the unemployed, the retired, the disabled, and other people that cannot work. And if they are on a low income salary there is no reason why they cannot receive a healthcare benefit to cover them (means tested of course) rather than the UK public having to fund the £134 billion the NHS currently costs a year.

In fact, there is no reason why they cannot privatise the NHS creating 66 million shares and given out one to each member of the population so that they get the extra income. from dividends and share trading. The healthcare sector here would quickly grow to £500 billion in value with profits going to people who can then spend them in the economy. And around and around the multiplier effect goes giving us a huge boost to our GDP.

I don't understand what your answer has to do with power plants.  The government can build a power plant because it can use imminent domain to acquire ownership of the water.  But a private company can't do that.  That seems to bar further power plant developments in the western US.  Another problem, though, is that we have pretty-much used up all the good places for hydro-electric dams.  We don't want any more Teton Dams.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
6 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

I don't understand what your answer has to do with power plants.  The government can build a power plant because it can use imminent domain to acquire ownership of the water.  But a private company can't do that.  That seems to bar further power plant developments in the western US.  Another problem, though, is that we have pretty-much used up all the good places for hydro-electric dams.  We don't want any more Teton Dams.

Doug

Anything can be privatised, even a power plant.

In the UK we built an extensive nuclear, gas, and oil power industry. Then we privatised it. When we need more power plants we often give government investment to help private companies build them, run them, and ultimately own them.

In the case of dams then thats something the US historically liked to built. If there isn't room for more then there are plenty of other types of power plant. If privatising them is complicated due to land ownership issues from the past, then a large chunk of the shares go to them as compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

But in the southwest I don't know of any large plants that are government owned.  Some rural areas have co-ops that the people in the area own together, and in some areas the plants are owned by one company or a few investor companies, one big one being PNM, which put in the nuclear plant and owns sever coal plants. 

Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Parker Dam, Grand Valley Dam, Gransby Dam, Blue Mesa Dam, Fontenelle Dam, Green Mountain Dam, McPhee Dam, Navajo Dam, Bartlett Dam, Mormon Flat Dam, New Waddell Dam, Painted Rock Dam, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Jackson Lake Dam, Palisades Dam, Gem State Dam, American Falls Dam, Minidoka Dam, Milner Dam, Twin Falls Dam, Shioshine Falls Dam, Upper Salmon Falls Dam, Lower Salmon Falls Dam, Bliss Dam, C. J. Strike Dam, Swan Falls Dam, BrownleseDam, Oxbow Dam ..

There are a lot more, but I'm running out of steam.  Most are government-owned, but not all.  Most are irrigation dams, but some generate power, particularly those on the Columbia and Lower Colorado.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, Doug1029 said:

Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Parker Dam, Grand Valley Dam, Gransby Dam, Blue Mesa Dam, Fontenelle Dam, Green Mountain Dam, McPhee Dam, Navajo Dam, Bartlett Dam, Mormon Flat Dam, New Waddell Dam, Painted Rock Dam, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Jackson Lake Dam, Palisades Dam, Gem State Dam, American Falls Dam, Minidoka Dam, Milner Dam, Twin Falls Dam, Shioshine Falls Dam, Upper Salmon Falls Dam, Lower Salmon Falls Dam, Bliss Dam, C. J. Strike Dam, Swan Falls Dam, BrownleseDam, Oxbow Dam ..

There are a lot more, but I'm running out of steam.  Most are government-owned, but not all.  Most are irrigation dams, but some generate power, particularly those on the Columbia and Lower Colorado.

Doug

Ok.  The area I am in does not get electricity from those sources so I forgot about them.  I never knew about any except Hoover dam and do not consider the non-electric dams as relevant.  Are all those in the southwest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Anything can be privatised, even a power plant.

In the UK we built an extensive nuclear, gas, and oil power industry. Then we privatised it. When we need more power plants we often give government investment to help private companies build them, run them, and ultimately own them.

In the case of dams then thats something the US historically liked to built. If there isn't room for more then there are plenty of other types of power plant. If privatising them is complicated due to land ownership issues from the past, then a large chunk of the shares go to them as compensation.

So you used government to build your power system and then turned it over to business?  That's the definition of fascism.  Are your power companies unable to build their own power plants?  Why should they use government to force their will on your citizens?

In the US, the TVA and Columbia River systems were built by the govt as a means of mitigating the Great Depression.  That problem doesn't exist anymore and besides, we have built all the dams we have sites for.

Power companies can build nuclear plants if they want to, but they're afraid of the risks.  Detroit Fermi, Chalk River, Three Mile Island, Fukujima .. They are justifiably afraid of the liabilities.  Still, fast breeders can re-use spent fuel from other reactors and consolidate it into less-dangerous materials for storage.  Risky, but it would provide a market for fissionable material we now have to pay to store.  And wind is the cheapest source of electricity there is.  That may not be the case for you if you have to put all your wind turbines out to sea.

The problem in the western US is that the WATER is privately owned.  Acquiring all those water rights would take decades, maybe centuries of litigation.  It's really a moot point because we don't have any good sites anyway.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Ok.  The area I am in does not get electricity from those sources so I forgot about them.  I never knew about any except Hoover dam and do not consider the non-electric dams as relevant.  Are all those in the southwest?

Everything before Jackson Lake Dam is on the Colorado River.

Jackson Lake and after are on the Columbia.

You can look up the ones that generate power - Wikipedia has lists.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
2 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

So you used government to build your power system and then turned it over to business?  That's the definition of fascism.  Are your power companies unable to build their own power plants?  Why should they use government to force their will on your citizens?

In the US, the TVA and Columbia River systems were built by the govt as a means of mitigating the Great Depression.  That problem doesn't exist anymore and besides, we have built all the dams we have sites for.

Power companies can build nuclear plants if they want to, but they're afraid of the risks.  Detroit Fermi, Chalk River, Three Mile Island, Fukujima .. They are justifiably afraid of the liabilities.  Still, fast breeders can re-use spent fuel from other reactors and consolidate it into less-dangerous materials for storage.  Risky, but it would provide a market for fissionable material we now have to pay to store.  And wind is the cheapest source of electricity there is.  That may not be the case for you if you have to put all your wind turbines out to sea.

The problem in the western US is that the WATER is privately owned.  Acquiring all those water rights would take decades, maybe centuries of litigation.  It's really a moot point because we don't have any good sites anyway.

Doug

You think a Government intervening in the market is fascism?

Without power a country doesnt work, so when power plants are needed it is common for the Government to invest to get them built. I live in the UK. A power plant is a major capital investment, not something that is cheap to build. Here the water is all privately owned too.

I think maybe you are trapped into thinking expanding the power supply has to be done with hydro-electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

You think a Government intervening in the market is fascism?

If industry and government combine to control markets and otherwise create unreasonable laws to control their people, then that is fascism.  Just working together cooperatively is not.

4 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Without power a country doesnt work, so when power plants are needed it is common for the Government to invest to get them built. I live in the UK. A power plant is a major capital investment, not something that is cheap to build. Here the water is all privately owned too.

We have lots of private power plants in the US.  Most have been built by industry.  There really is no need for government to enter the picture directly.  But the govt can still influence activity with loans and rate changes, etc.  So you beleieve in capitalism, except when it applies to a power plant?

 

5 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I think maybe you are trapped into thinking expanding the power supply has to be done with hydro-electricity.

You haven't been reading my posts.  I'm a wind advocate, but also support solar, especially perovskites.  These plus existing hydro will have to power the planet in another 30 years if we are to halt climate change without going bankrupt.  There is always the possibility of a new technology developing, (cool fusion?) but as of now it's not ready for market.

Government's role is to do the basic research.  Once that has been done, business can do the applied research needed to deliver products to market.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Nuclear runs about 10 cents per kwh.  Wind runs about 3.5 cents per kwh.  That's why.

But what if I don't like those facts because I want to claim its a lefty/commie plot? 

Do you have some alternative ones for us? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
16 hours ago, aztek said:

you mean like kolkhoz  in ussr, lol.   sure tell me more

That would be more of an example of neo-serfdom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
37 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That would be more of an example of neo-serfdom. 

no it is a perfect example of socialism in real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, aztek said:

no it is a perfect example of socialism in real world. 

You know, the reason why I don't push for English to be the official language of the US is simply because of the mere fact that a large portion of the US population can't seem to use it correctly even though it is their native language.  (Trump is an excellent example)

One of the biggest problem that I see is that many of my countrymen don't even know what words mean in their own language.  The word "Socialism" is a prime example of one that a bulk of the population simply can't grasp the meaning of- even if it is clearly spelt out in the dictionary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Gromdor said:

You know, the reason why I don't push for English to be the official language of the US is simply because of the mere fact that a large portion of the US population can't seem to use it correctly even though it is their native language.  (Trump is an excellent example)

One of the biggest problem that I see is that many of my countrymen don't even know what words mean in their own language.  The word "Socialism" is a prime example of one that a bulk of the population simply can't grasp the meaning of- even if it is clearly spelt out in the dictionary.

maybe you are the one who actually  don't even know what words mean in their own language, have you considered such possibility?   world have seen what socialism really is, it does not matter what language, it is same everywhere it was tried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, aztek said:

maybe you are the one who actually  don't even know what words mean in their own language, have you considered such possibility?   world have seen what socialism really is, it does not matter what language, it is same everywhere it was tried

Maybe.......  <checks Webster's Dictionary>    or maybe not........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

that is your problem, you stick to book definitions and ignore actual reality, as in multiple events that already happened.  idk what else to say,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
59 minutes ago, aztek said:

that is your problem, you stick to book definitions and ignore actual reality, as in multiple events that already happened.  idk what else to say,  

I don't think you have ever actually experienced first hand any of those things you are claiming to be reality.   But hey, let's go a different direction then.

 

So lets look at this with logic:

You say single payer is socialism.

You say socialism always fails.

Single payer is successfully used in a large portion of the most successful countries in the world. (It's not failing)

 

All three of these statements can't be true.   Which one is the falsehood?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I don't think you have ever actually experienced first hand any of those things you are claiming to be reality.  

 

half of my family did, and i also have been to russia, ukraine,  and talked to people there, saw how they live,  so my knowledge comes from those who lived it firsthand, and from what i saw myself, what do you base your opinion on? dictionary, and political promises? seems that way.

but you don't have to take my word for it, talk to immigrants from ussr, or cuba, venezuela, ask them how socialism works for them

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
7 minutes ago, aztek said:

half of my family did, and i also have been to russia, ukraine,  and talked to people there, saw how they live,  so my knowledge comes from those who lived it firsthand, and from what i saw myself, what do you base your opinion on? dictionary, and political promises? seems that way.

but you don't have to take my word for it, talk to immigrants from ussr, or cuba, venezuela, ask them how socialism works for them

 

Having relatives from formerly communist countries might give you background on communism but not so much on socialism.   Are we skipping the logic question, btw? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Having relatives from formerly communist countries might give you background on communism but not so much on socialism.   Are we skipping the logic question, btw? 

ussr was socialist country, union of soviet socialist republics.

i do not see logical questions,  not to mention i already said all i have to say about the subject.  i do not see any need to regurgitate .

i can tell you than thot, those who came from there will do anything in their power to not let it happen here, for their kids and grandkids, 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, aztek said:

ussr was socialist country, union of soviet socialist republics.

USSR was actually state capitalist.  Do you think it was a republic too, just because it was in the name?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.