NationStates Jolt Archive

It is said that the US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. That is not true. Only a few have truely universal healthcare. The reason why I say this is because I consider universal healthcare not just government payment, but also government ownership. With payment subsidised by the state, the market in healthcare is a non issue, and the state pays only what is needed to maintaiin quality, and not what is needed to make a profit.
That being said, many nations don't have this. While payment is through the government or a government insurance program, healthcare does have a market. Yet prices are subject to change, and the cost of healthcare fluctuates. Yet there is arguably better healthcare.
I reiterate: this is not asking about financing. I'll ask that later. This is about healthcare itself. Should we leave the sector to private ownership, or do we nationalize it?

In the UK, we have the NHS (National Health Service) which is a nationalised and government funded health scheme the overall quality of care is good, however we do have problems with waiting lists and superbugs such as MRSA which do not appear in private sector hospitals.

Indeed, BUPA, the largest privatly run health service still has little waiting times and the best hospitals in the country...so national or private? Well from this previous statement it would seem obvious to go private as the service would have to be top quality to ensure the company makes a profit and gets return custom. However, a government regulator should be created to ensure standards remain high and not subject to market forces.

But tbh, i would rather have a national service that works...i mean its free! However we need to address the problem of health tourists, but thats a completly different matter!

Graham Harvey

But tbh, i would rather have a national service that works...i mean its free! However we need to address the problem of health tourists, but thats a completly different matter!

Graham Harvey
Free my ass...

I would say let those who want private healthcare take care of themselves, they wouln't have to contribute to a NHS. Let those who want state-run healthcare for that. That way no is stuck having something they don't want.

Free my ass...

I would say let those who want private healthcare take care of themselves, they wouln't have to contribute to a NHS. Let those who want state-run healthcare for that. That way no is stuck having something they don't want.

So in general the poor people who could only afford to contribute to the NHS and not pay for private would have a far lower quality healthcare service since it's not subsidised by everyone?

Sounds fair. After all, we all know that the child of a rich family is undoubtedly worth more as a human being than the child of a poor family, therefore deserves to live more.

I think there should be a combo.

There should exist State-run, universal healthcare, but that doesn't have to mean we kill an entire private sector.

Universal healthcare should be avaliable to all individuals, but it should be limited to neccisary(for life and/or reasonable freedom from suffering) procedures and medicines. If you want that plastic surgery(unless it's reconstructive of course), hair transplant, or unneccisary abortion, go private and pay yourself. But if you're dying of pneumonia or something and too poor to pay, come on down.

The private sector should be the recourse for non-neccisary procedures and medicines, as well as if you want a procedure done with a specific doctor or facility, and won't go to a state hospital. If we force everyone to go to state doctors, it's too tyrannical.

People should have the option of seeing a doctor they prefer, and the society shouldn't be paying for completely unneccisary procedures. But there must be some sort of universal state healthcare. It is evil beyond belief to condemn someone to death or suffering simply because they cannot pay the fees.

I think there should be a combo.

There should exist State-run, universal healthcare, but that doesn't have to mean we kill an entire private sector.

Universal healthcare should be avaliable to all individuals, but it should be limited to neccisary(for life and/or reasonable freedom from suffering) procedures and medicines. If you want that plastic surgery(unless it's reconstructive of course), hair transplant, or unneccisary abortion, go private and pay yourself. But if you're dying of pneumonia or something and too poor to pay, come on down.

The private sector should be the recourse for non-neccisary procedures and medicines, as well as if you want a procedure done with a specific doctor or facility, and won't go to a state hospital. If we force everyone to go to state doctors, it's too tyrannical.

People should have the option of seeing a doctor they prefer, and the society shouldn't be paying for completely unneccisary procedures. But there must be some sort of universal state healthcare. It is evil beyond belief to condemn someone to death or suffering simply because they cannot pay the fees.


That's pretty much how it works in the UK, though I believe that you can get abortions on the NHS.

Oh god no I hope it isn't nationalized
Look some nations they nationalized it and people there go to shi@!# doctors for a stupid cold, the taxes there are way higher and since all doctors get paid the same no matter what most of them s!@#
Trust me its a waste of money being forced to pay for someone elses medical bill when you can pay for it yourself and in the long term save more money because that way beggars and random people on the street can't just go to the doctors office because they have a cold then usual

No, because the system would become bogged down in so many layers of bureaucracy, cost inefficency, and pork spending that the net quality of healthcare would decline. Plus, the taxes needed to support a system on the scale of the United States would break our economy. Private, market driven healthcare is the best way to ensure that people have the best care they can afford. For poor people, simply give them some kind of voucher or credit that can cover medical expenses or health insurance costs.

I reiterate: this is not asking about financing. I'll ask that later. This is about healthcare itself. Should we leave the sector to private ownership, or do we nationalize it?

I think it has been proven on various programs that the private sector can run a program much more efficiently than the government. Leave health care in the private sector.

So in general the poor people who could only afford to contribute to the NHS and not pay for private would have a far lower quality healthcare service since it's not subsidised by everyone?

Sounds fair. After all, we all know that the child of a rich family is undoubtedly worth more as a human being than the child of a poor family, therefore deserves to live more.
I am a staunch believer in letting people do what they wish with their money. If they don't want to contribute to a NHS, then why should they? That bit of spin at the end didn't help your argument.

In the UK, we have the NHS (National Health Service) which is a nationalised and government funded health scheme the overall quality of care is good, however we do have problems with waiting lists and superbugs such as MRSA which do not appear in private sector hospitals.

Indeed, BUPA, the largest privatly run health service still has little waiting times and the best hospitals in the country...so national or private? Well from this previous statement it would seem obvious to go private as the service would have to be top quality to ensure the company makes a profit and gets return custom. However, a government regulator should be created to ensure standards remain high and not subject to market forces.

But tbh, i would rather have a national service that works...i mean its free! However we need to address the problem of health tourists, but thats a completly different matter!

Graham Harvey



It's not free, you have to pay exhorbitant amounts of taxes to fund it. Also, one of your chief health officials stated that it's not sustainable economically, if allowed to continue to such a degree.

Free my ass...

I would say let those who want private healthcare take care of themselves, they wouln't have to contribute to a NHS. Let those who want state-run healthcare for that. That way no is stuck having something they don't want.

It is free. Plus, experts believe that the NHS hospitals are not much worse than private equivalents in other countries.

I am a staunch believer in letting people do what they wish with their money. If they don't want to contribute to a NHS, then why should they? That bit of spin at the end didn't help your argument.

Indeed, why should they contribute? Why should anyone do anything they don't want to? If you see a person dying in the street, why should you help them? You might get blood on your new suit!

Oh, and what bit of spin? Deny that if you give poorer health care for the poor then more poor children will die than usual. Or do you just not care about other peoples children?

That's pretty much how it works in the UK, though I believe that you can get abortions on the NHS.

The UK never fails to amaze me. Why! Why did we have to seceede!?! :headbang:

:D

It is free. Plus, experts believe that the NHS hospitals are not much worse than private equivalents in other countries.



It's not free. You have to pay more taxes to support it.

The UK never fails to amaze me. Why! Why did we have to seceede!?! :headbang:

:D



Something about tyranny and lack of political representation methinks.

Indeed, why should they contribute? Why should anyone do anything they don't want to? If you see a person dying in the street, why should you help them? You might get blood on your new suit!

Oh, and what bit of spin? Deny that if you give poorer health care for the poor then more poor children will die than usual. Or do you just not care about other peoples children?
If you don't wish to help someone, then don't. I don't believe should coerce one person to help another.

No, you made it sound that I care about the wealthy more than the poor. Why should ones property be taken to help another?

It is free. Plus, experts believe that the NHS hospitals are not much worse than private equivalents in other countries.

It appears to be "free" because you have no direct out of pocket expenses for your medical care. But, it is not “free" because you pay taxes to support the program and your taxes would be less if the program didn't exist. You do pay for your medical care, but it is an indirect payment.

No, you made it sound that I care about the wealthy more than the poor. Why should ones property be taken to help another?

People who are adamently opposed to free healthcare usually DO care more about the wealthy than the poor. Who do you think benefits from the NHS? Not the wealthy, but those who could not otherwise afford care.

If you don't wish to help someone, then don't. I don't believe should coerce one person to help another.

No, you made it sound that I care about the wealthy more than the poor. Why should ones property be taken to help another?

LOL LOL
You know nationalizing health care sounds like a communist idea
We all send in money from our taxes and heal random people all over the state

And the communist idea is pretty much we all work hard and we all share the spoils

Something about tyranny and lack of political representation methinks.

Or some greedy landowners who were after more power and profit, whichever answer you prefer. Oh, by the way, who helped you do that by the way? Why, it's your favourite country in all the world - France!

Well, there are a few minor details that would make the conversion difficult.

- Where would the funds needed to maintain national health care come from? Taxes. People hate taxes.

- What happens to all of the doctors and nurses in the private sector of healthcare? Ideally, they would be subsidized and controlled by the state. How do these new employees maintain their current level of income? They don't. Doctors would be majorly pissed off, nurses not so much. It's a well known fact that working for the state yields meager wages. I suspect there would be a decrease in the attractiveness of becoming a doctor.

- What about the wealthy, those who can afford top of the line medical care? They would be brought down to the same type of treatment given to the less fortunate.

So, let's break it down. Those who can easily afford health care will for the most part be unhappy. Those who give the health care will for the most part be unhappy. Those who struggle paying for health care will for the most part be happy. Who do you aim to please? What percentage of the population has trouble with health care? Is the time and cost of the transition and maintenance worth the benefits given to this portion of the population? Would there be an alarming decrease in available doctors, leading to poor service?

The UK never fails to amaze me. Why! Why did we have to seceede!?! :headbang: :D

If you are talking about the US, we didn't seceed, we revolted. :eek: I beleive one of the causes of that revolution was high taxes. Hmmm...

Something about tyranny and lack of political representation methinks.

The British government wasn't tyrannical. The "taxes" on the colony were less than those paid - without bitching - by the people living in Britain itself. The government structure was a constitutional monarchy, one of the least tyrannical governments in the old world.

Though you're right about representation. The colonies had an appointed, not elected, member of parliament to speak on thier behalf. Who apparently didn't do a bang up job of it.

And here we are today, without Universal Healthcare. :p

People who are adamently opposed to free healthcare usually DO care more about the wealthy than the poor. Who do you think benefits from the NHS? Not the wealthy, but those who could not otherwise afford care.
That was a rash generalization and highly unfair. I am talking about principles, not groups of people. I'm sticking to my priniciples of keep what you have unless you want to give it away.

That was a rash generalization and highly unfair. I am talking about principles, not groups of people. I'm sticking to my priniciples of keep what you have unless you want to give it away.

Good for you - if you can say with a morally clean conscience that the rich having to give up a portion of what they earn to stop people for dying horribly and preventably is a bad thing, then I admire your stoicism.

Or some greedy landowners who were after more power and profit, whichever answer you prefer. Oh, by the way, who helped you do that by the way? Why, it's your favourite country in all the world - France!



Sounds to me like someone needs to learn something about the concept of "history." Also, the France thing is irrelevant to the discussion.

Good for you - if you can say with a morally clean conscience that the rich having to give up a portion of what they earn to stop people for dying horribly and preventably is a bad thing, then I admire your stoicism.
I'm saying that everyone should keep what they have unless they decide otherwise, be they wealthy or poor or anything inbetween, with that I have no moral qualms.

The only country to have true Universal Healthcare (I believe), is Canada, although this may change in the coming years because of a recent court ruling...

Anyways, it's interesting to note that Canadians live far healthier lives than say, Americans even as there government pays about $500.00 more per person than the Canadian government does on healthcare.

The belief that government run healthcare is bad, is simply misinformed non-sense and while I do agree that Canada needs to start upgrading it's system, that in no way diminishes what we have right now: social equality.

Viva la free healthcare!

The British government wasn't tyrannical. The "taxes" on the colony were less than those paid - without bitching - by the people living in Britain itself. The government structure was a constitutional monarchy, one of the least tyrannical governments in the old world.

Though you're right about representation. The colonies had an appointed, not elected, member of parliament to speak on thier behalf. Who apparently didn't do a bang up job of it.

And here we are today, without Universal Healthcare. :p

I think the reason the Americans were pissed was because they had to pay taxes for troops there Britian posted troops their hoping to keep the indians out however the Americans said that there haven't been an attack in years and that the troops are going to waste
Not only that but British pretty much gave Canada to surrendered annexed frenchmen and America was like WTF we just fought and died to kill those dudes and now your giving it back?
And the last reason was because Britian finally decided they had taken enough land and set a large line saying this is our border the rest belong to the Indains effectively pissing off several bias farmers

Healthcare should be universal and state run, but it should also allow the private sector to offer healthcare as well. Universal State-run healthcare should be a safety net for those who cannot pay hospital bills and high drug costs, but would obviously become overcrowded and of a poor quality. That leaves the private sector to offer healthcare that is expensive, but you could get better trained doctors and nurses, shorter lines, and a better experience overall.

Basically, if you're poor then you get the [free] bottom rung, but if you can pay for something better then you should be able to. Government should act when there is no other option for the people, and allow the private sector to do what they please.

Good for you - if you can say with a morally clean conscience that the rich having to give up a portion of what they earn to stop people for dying horribly and preventably is a bad thing, then I admire your stoicism.

The majority of the money used to pay for a healthcare service would come from the middle class, not the wealthy, and so you would be penalizing them and hurting the economy to give everyone mediocre healthcare regardless of whether they want it or not. This would in turn ruin the economy and overall make things worse for everyone than they were before nationalized healthcare.

Sounds to me like someone needs to learn something about the concept of "history." Also, the France thing is irrelevant to the discussion.

So let me hear what you were taught, oh wise woman of the west. Does it involve a suit wearing and cane wielding dastardly British man pondering "I need more money for my evil attempts to oppress more people, make Americans pay a 99% income tax rate, MUAHAHAHA!" but being stopped in his tracks by the dashing and, let's face it, ethically superior people of the USA, every single one of them opposing Britain?

Its ridiculious how many benefit the poor gets sometimes people who are in the middle range will spend huge amounts of money on luxuries effectively putting themselves in the poor range and enjoy huge benefits from teh government
I don't support free hand out, life is pretty fair if you work hard in school you'll be able to live life easier when your older
If you drop out of school your life with sux

Viva la free healthcare!
"There's no such thing as a free lunch."- M. Friedman

The British government wasn't tyrannical. The "taxes" on the colony were less than those paid - without bitching - by the people living in Britain itself.

Did you study American History or English History? The bit about the taxes in the colonies being less is not a historically accurate fact.

But, getting back on subject, my biggest complaint against a government run heal care system is the inefficiency of the system. The Veterans Administration is an excellent example of a government run healthcare system and it is grossly inefficient. When you are sick or in pain, you don't want to wait weeks or months to get treatment.

Its ridiculious how many benefit the poor gets sometimes people who are in the middle range will spend huge amounts of money on luxuries effectively putting themselves in the poor range and enjoy huge benefits from teh government
I don't support free hand out, life is pretty fair if you work hard in school you'll be able to live life easier when your older
If you drop out of school your life with sux

And of course, since free education is also a nationalised government "hand out" then only those whose parents can afford it should be able to attend and earn their way to be...uh...even moe richer, right?

Did you study American History or English History?

Because we all know how biased "English" (British btw) History is taught and how all American History taught is pure fact?

I think the reason the Americans were pissed was because they had to pay taxes for troops there Britian posted troops their hoping to keep the indians out however the Americans said that there haven't been an attack in years and that the troops are going to waste
Not only that but British pretty much gave Canada to surrendered annexed frenchmen and America was like WTF we just fought and died to kill those dudes and now your giving it back?
And the last reason was because Britian finally decided they had taken enough land and set a large line saying this is our border the rest belong to the Indains effectively pissing off several bias farmers

Yea something like that. The British had told the American colonists that they would not provide troop protection for those who chose to cross the Appalachians and enter Indian territory and settle there. Which effectively prohibited expansion past the Appalachians. The indian tribes loved Britain for this one as it pretty much guarenteed thier territorial integrity, but the colonists felt it was an injustice. It was one of the many reasons for the Revolutionary war.

The British did keep troops in America, quartering them in private residences sometimes and costing the Americans plenty, which was another major issue.

I don't know about the Anglo-French situation in Canada though.

I love how mindlessly people cling to the idea of "Free" healthcare. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that fail to realize that nothing in this lifetime is, was, or ever will be "free," at least from a monetary standpoint.

The idea that healthcare should be nationalized is an extention of the belief that man, by his very existence alone, is entitled to the products and labors of other men. I think my complaints with this concept have been adequately discussed on the forum and need no further elaboration here.

But I will, however, posit this: If man has a right to other man made products and services, why stop at healthcare? Why shouldn't he be able to get "free" pizza delivery or "free" nuclear warheads from the State?

I already know what the answer is. The answer is that 'well, he needs healthcare to survive.' Bullshit. Our ancestors had to survive for ten thousand years without this healthcare. If you want to mutate your argument into some oft-trotted out two bit hooker of a rebuttal with "but we live in a more enlightened age now," I'd do well to point out that George W. Bush is currently the commander in cheif of the "Free World's" armed forces. Enlightened my ass.

Nationalized healthcare is not "free," if anything, it's exorbitantly much more expensive. Your average American citizen, for example, is not bending over backwards to pay for medical bills related to an injury or illness that they don't have the funds to fix; only a very small minority of us are. So what would end up happening if you nationalized healthcare would be you'd have millions and millions of people paying thousands of dollars per year into this tax [assuming it would have a similar scope to, say, SS or Welfare] and the vast majority of them would do nothing more with it than go get a physical and maybe take a trip to the dentist if s/he was so inclined. In short, they'd end up paying, say $2500 per year for one doctor's visit and a cavity filling. Conversely, you'd have poor folks paying maybe $500 per year into this and getting open heart surgery out of it.

This is favor to the poor every bit as much as people are claiming our current administration is favor to the rich. I find it hilarious the number of Socialists who will agree with me that the government should not favor anyone based on their income alone, then turn around and fight for nonsense like this.

I, for example, am 20 years old and I don't get sick easily. Such a program would have absolutely no benefit to me and would only serve to remove another 10 or so percent of my earnings from my paycheck. If healthcare were nationalized in this country, my reaction would be violent and immediate.

I read somewhere that the U.S. government actually pays more, per capita, for healthcare, than almost all countries that have a national healthcare system, EXCEPT BRITAIN! The British healthcare system is a mightily screwed up one. The U.S. pays more than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, ect...But no, we can't have national healthcare, because then we'd be Communists. Gimme a break. It's comparable to when people complain of welfare mothers, when social welfare programs cost a tiny fracion of what it costs U.S. taxpayers in corporate welfare, which strikes me as much more Communistic than national healthcare.

Did you study American History or English History? The bit about the taxes in the colonies being less is not a historically accurate fact.

But, getting back on subject, my biggest complaint against a government run heal care system is the inefficiency of the system. The Veterans Administration is an excellent example of a government run healthcare system and it is grossly inefficient. When you are sick or in pain, you don't want to wait weeks or months to get treatment.

I've gotten history on the Revolution from France(elementary school), Japan(Middle School), and America(High School). As far back as I can remember I've heard the same thing - the average Colonial's tax burden was LESS than the average citizen of the British Isles. If it's a historical innaccuracy it crosses a lot of borders and is rather prevalent.

Back to topic; in Spain the healthcare system is both public and private. Of course there are private clinics and hospitals, but the public system is completely paid and owned by the government. The government pays many medicines; you just go to the consultation, present your Seguridad Social card, take the precription and exchange it in a pharmacy for free.

I've gotten history on the Revolution from France(elementary school), Japan(Middle School), and America(High School). As far back as I can remember I've heard the same thing - the average Colonial's tax burden was LESS than the average citizen of the British Isles. If it's a historical innaccuracy it crosses a lot of borders and is rather prevalent.

Actually thats inaccurate, America was in the end a colony
The very idea of colonization is for the colony to only exist to benefit the mother nation
While you might mean that the house taxes were more in Britian because after all Britian was wayy better to live in then a house in the forest but America defintely paid wayyy more

Its ridiculious how many benefit the poor gets sometimes people who are in the middle range will spend huge amounts of money on luxuries effectively putting themselves in the poor range and enjoy huge benefits from teh government
I don't support free hand out, life is pretty fair if you work hard in school you'll be able to live life easier when your older
If you drop out of school your life with sux

And that attitude just might work, if the poor people just had the good courtesy to quietly disappear. Unfortunately, they're not so polite and so still have the gall to demand such things as a decent life and to occasionally receive medical treatment if they get sick or injured. Damn them, eh?

Or perhaps you happen to think that just because a law says they can't break into your house, steal your stuff, and use that to pay for medicine for their kids they won't. Personally, I'm not so naive.

There really is no such thing as a free lunch. If a portion of your taxes don't go to healthcare and social services, it will inevitably wind up going to law enforcement instead. Of course, going by your view, a person shouldn't have to pay for a prison unless they want to as well, right?

Just a couple of thoughts. Many people in the U.S. don't got to the doctor when they have medical problems because they've no health insurance and healthcare has become a luxury.
While people can still get emergency healthcare, many can't afford preventive medicine such as colonoscopies, etc.
Many people when faced with a serious medical procedure must weigh the value of their life as opposed to ruining the life of a spouse or family members. For instance, in the event of some form of cancer, a person may have to decide whether to break their family finacially or go ahead and take the treatments which may or may not work. Is their life worth the financial ruin of their family. In such a case, suicide becomes a serious consideration even if that person is not really wanting to end their life.
That mole on your face look funny? Nah, too expensive. Let it go.
Blood in the stool or urine? Probably nothing. let it go.
Spots in front of your eyes? The weather's just too hot and been working too hard. Let it go.

Free healthcare is a basic human right and that is something that can only be provided by a publicly owned and run service. There may be some problems with the NHS here in Scotland but at least everyone has access to it which is something that can't be said for a more backward country like the USA where over 40 million people have no health insurance. The best solution for improving the NHS is to nationalise any hospitals run by BUPA or other private companies and to massively increase the scandalously low taxes currently paid by big business and the rich.

oops i voted the private sector by mistake - i meant the state :headbang:


however i think the state should run the nationalised industry not as a single monopoly/monopsony, but instead as a quasi-market of a number of state-owed businesses all competing for some kind of incentive, as to push for efficiency without losing the important consumer-comes-first-over-profit motive that a wholly private firm would lack

oops i voted the private sector by mistake - i meant the state


however i think the state should run the nationalised industry not as a single monopoly/monopsony, but instead as a quasi-market of a number of state-owed businesses all competing for some kind of incentive, as to push for efficiency without losing the important consumer-comes-first-over-profit motive that a wholly private firm would lack

Wait, so you're saying the State should compete with itself? It's not competition when the money is all going to the same place....

You talk about the corruption that would 'run rampant' under unfettered capitalism while systematically failing to see or refusing to see that it's actually a lot easier to do that sort of stuff the way you prefer to do things.

"Men who are immune to facts and logic have no choice but to traffic in fantasy. Hence the senseless projections we hear today about life under pure capitalism: 'What if roads were private property and the owners refused to let people drive on them?' 'What if commercial firefighters charged a million dollars to put out a fire?' 'What if unregulated television networks aired nothing but commercials and genitalia?' All of this is like asking: 'What if bakers refused to let people buy their bread?' 'What if surgeons charged a million dollars for an appendectomy?' 'What if an unregulated press brought out papers filled only with ads and obscenities?' (One rarely hears anyone ask: 'What if, under Socialism, a clerk in the People's Planning Commission nurses a hatred for some helpess worker?' or 'What if the top leader turns into a monster?' --yet these are daily realities under every version of collectivism.)

The most ludicrous of all the projections we hear is: "What if, under Capitalism, no one volunteers to help the truly helpless?" Such callousness never existed in early America; is it possible on a large scale only when men are crushed by poverty, thanks to statism; and/or when men feel mutual hared, thanks to being forced to subsist as prisoners in collectivist chain gangs.

Without a proper epistemology, men do not use their minds properly, and their political conclusions are correspondingly worthless. In today's culture, this principle works out as follows. Irrationalism leads the intellectuals to discard the possibility of independence (of the reality orientation) in favor of altruism, which leads them to conclude that capitalism is evil. Thereafter, however scandalously they drop context, rewrite history, or contradict themselves, they feel no shame; so long as they are anticapitalis, the feel noble. Their epistemonology, in short, permits them to manipulate the data as they choose--to reach any conclusions they like in regard to any matter of fact; and their ethics programs them to reach only statist conclusions

--Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I probably damned myself by stating the source, as it will undoubtedly be decried as merely being worhtless propaganda. Instead of doing that, for a change, try to prove Mr. Peikoff wrong. I'd have taken a stab at this myself, but it's already been said more eloquently.

No, because the system would become bogged down in so many layers of bureaucracy, cost inefficency, and pork spending that the net quality of healthcare would decline. Plus, the taxes needed to support a system on the scale of the United States would break our economy. Private, market driven healthcare is the best way to ensure that people have the best care they can afford. For poor people, simply give them some kind of voucher or credit that can cover medical expenses or health insurance costs.
All of the costs of healthcare paid by the private sector would just go to the public. There's no extra money involved, except maybe in the beginning, when the HMO administration is replaced by a government one. So how would that bankrupt a country?

Just a couple of thoughts. Many people in the U.S. don't got to the doctor when they have medical problems because they've no health insurance and healthcare has become a luxury.
While people can still get emergency healthcare, many can't afford preventive medicine such as colonoscopies, etc.
Many people when faced with a serious medical procedure must weigh the value of their life as opposed to ruining the life of a spouse or family members. For instance, in the event of some form of cancer, a person may have to decide whether to break their family finacially or go ahead and take the treatments which may or may not work. Is their life worth the financial ruin of their family. In such a case, suicide becomes a serious consideration even if that person is not really wanting to end their life.
That mole on your face look funny? Nah, too expensive. Let it go.
Blood in the stool or urine? Probably nothing. let it go.
Spots in front of your eyes? The weather's just too hot and been working too hard. Let it go.

I have health insurance. I never go to the doctor when I see some minor thing like that. If anything, it is just a normal body quirk that will heal itself.

Now, for those out there that want to nationalise healthcare, let me ask this. Do we nationalise plastic surgery? Do we even allow it? Before you answer, consider a few things. For one, I know of many people with surgical scars so that they don't have to hide it. I myself have one. For another, many teens are teased in school for body problems. Perhaps a boy has too big of boobs, or a girl has fat in her love handles, which neither can get rid of. Do we give them plastic surgery to spare them emotional anguish?

Wait, so you're saying the State should compete with itself? It's not competition when the money is all going to the same place....

(One rarely hears anyone ask: 'What if, under Socialism, a clerk in the People's Planning Commission nurses a hatred for some helpess worker?' or 'What if the top leader turns into a monster?' --yet these are daily realities under every version of collectivism.)
Which is why any sensible means of collectivism has levels of appeal built in, and democracy to control the leadership. Selective argument.

The most ludicrous of all the projections we hear is: "What if, under Capitalism, no one volunteers to help the truly helpless?" Such callousness never existed in early America;
Bzzt.. here's the main flaw, as this is easily provable as complete BS. You want proof? Check out the status of Native American women (or hell, even women in general) in early America. Look up the origins of the phrase "rule of thumb" and talk to me about people volunteering to help the helpless.

is it possible on a large scale only when men are crushed by poverty, thanks to statism;[Emphasis added]
Of course, Ayn herself admits it's BS when she specifies "on a large scale". Why not just generally? Because she knows as well as we all do that on an individual scale, it happens all the time. Except without any defined place to appeal the decision to, you're just screwed.

and/or when men feel mutual hared, thanks to being forced to subsist as prisoners in collectivist chain gangs.Bzzt. Hyperbole.

Without a proper epistemology, men do not use their minds properly, and their political conclusions are correspondingly worthless.Bzzt. Argument from origins. Discards all other arguments based not on the arguments themselves, but on their origins. A common logical fallacy.

In today's culture, this principle works out as follows. Irrationalism leads the intellectuals to discard the possibility of independence (of the reality orientation) in favor of altruism, which leads them to conclude that capitalism is evil. Thereafter, however scandalously they drop context, rewrite history, or contradict themselves, they feel no shame; so long as they are anticapitalis, the feel noble.
Bzzt. Argument without proof, conspiracy theory. Counter-examples include peer-reviewed journals.

Their epistemonology, in short, permits them to manipulate the data as they choose--to reach any conclusions they like in regard to any matter of fact; and their ethics programs them to reach only statist conclusionsBzzt. Argument without proof, argument based on origins, conspiracy theory, hyperbole.


I probably damned myself by stating the source, as it will undoubtedly be decried as merely being worhtless propaganda. Instead of doing that, for a change, try to prove Mr. Peikoff wrong. I'd have taken a stab at this myself, but it's already been said more eloquently.
No, you didn't damn yourself by stating the source. You damned yourself by not applying a critical eye to it.

Incidentally, your first point is obviously not understanding what he said. The money doesn't all go to the same place. It goes to different doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc, based on their performance. I can see it working as those hospitals that received the best results through satisfaction surveys etc, received extra money from the government to further their means of doing things.

I'm not going to bother stating any overly political view on this. I like things the way they are in Britain. I'd like it to be fine-tuned also, sure, the bureaucracy needs shook up and eliminated in many cases. But I wouldn't want things to change drastically at all as far as the founding principles (most of all the principle that health care is "free at the point of use"). I'm incredibly sure I wouldn't like it any other way.

The only country to have true Universal Healthcare (I believe), is Canada, although this may change in the coming years because of a recent court ruling...

Anyways, it's interesting to note that Canadians live far healthier lives than say, Americans even as there government pays about $500.00 more per person than the Canadian government does on healthcare.

The belief that government run healthcare is bad, is simply misinformed non-sense and while I do agree that Canada needs to start upgrading it's system, that in no way diminishes what we have right now: social equality.

Viva la free healthcare!
Yet consider this: doctors and nurses migrate to the US for better jobs. There is a waiting list for healthcare. And the wealthiest, being the ones most likely to fund the system, often go south to be treated when they have something wrong. How do we ameliorate that?

I read somewhere that the U.S. government actually pays more, per capita, for healthcare, than almost all countries that have a national healthcare system, EXCEPT BRITAIN! The British healthcare system is a mightily screwed up one. The U.S. pays more than France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, ect...But no, we can't have national healthcare, because then we'd be Communists. Gimme a break. It's comparable to when people complain of welfare mothers, when social welfare programs cost a tiny fracion of what it costs U.S. taxpayers in corporate welfare, which strikes me as much more Communistic than national healthcare.
There is near unaminity that the British healthcare system is bad: outdated technology, long waiting lists, a bloated bureaocracy, and overall, expensive. Can this be blamed on the system itself, or the payment? Should Britain move to a national health insurance program, rather than paying for it directly out of taxes?

Free healthcare is a basic human right and that is something that can only be provided by a publicly owned and run service. There may be some problems with the NHS here in Scotland but at least everyone has access to it which is something that can't be said for a more backward country like the USA where over 40 million people have no health insurance. The best solution for improving the NHS is to nationalise any hospitals run by BUPA or other private companies and to massively increase the scandalously low taxes currently paid by big business and the rich.
You, and many people, seem to miss the point. Do you want healthcare nationalised, and subsequently have government subsidization? Or would you rather have a private sector that can be paid for in a number of ways? This can include taxes (as currently in Britain) or a national insurance program, in addition to your favorite method: private funding! :cool: Remember, there are pros and cons either way.

Which is why any sensible means of collectivism has levels of appeal built in, and democracy to control the leadership. Selective argument.
Um, it's a selective argument in response to a selective argument. If you're going to damn my example on that criteria alone, every socialist has now likewise lost the right to ask these very same questions. This isn't a line of reasoning I support either; the example was merely to prove that the same argument can be used both ways. It's meant to prove its invalidity.

Bzzt.. here's the main flaw, as this is easily provable as complete BS. You want proof? Check out the status of Native American women (or hell, even women in general) in early America. Look up the origins of the phrase "rule of thumb" and talk to me about people volunteering to help the helpless.
I'm just going to ignore this bit because [contrary to your apparent belief] I'm actually fairly intelligent and I understand the examples you're putting forth. You're dropping the context twice here by taking my argument out of context and substituting 'truly disadvantaged' with 'women.'

My point is that in early America, poverty was most surely not a problem. You've taken that and mutated it into a civil rights issue. Way to miss the forst for the trees. Bzzt!

[Emphasis added]
Of course, Ayn herself admits it's BS when she specifies "on a large scale". Why not just generally? Because she knows as well as we all do that on an individual scale, it happens all the time. Except without any defined place to appeal the decision to, you're just screwed.
I might be missing something here, but this statement makes no sense to me beyond the first sentence. Are you telling me, as a point of fact, that people become poor all the time? I think I already know that...

Bzzt. Hyperbole.
Bzzt! A true one.

See, I can do two word responses too. Try actually rebutting the point next time, thankyoudrivethrough.

Bzzt. Argument from origins. Discards all other arguments based not on the arguments themselves, but on their origins. A common logical fallacy.

Bzzt! As a point of fact, I have an answer for every argument you can think of; this observation merely identifies the root of these bad arguments. I don't use it as a catch-all to dismiss the points I don't feel like responding to. If you'd like to see some examples of this, you're more than welcome to examine my posting history. I do not merely say "Bad epistemology" when responding to an argument. I respond to it, but I know at the same time from whence the argument came: bad epistemology.

The fact that you don't care for the phrasing doesn't make it any less true. If someone decides that their best means of gathering information about reality is talking to a cheese grater, that's an epistemic mistake that will only get worse with time. The inaccuracies he perceives about reality are nine times out of ten the result of this error. People with bad epistemology can still be right of course, but it's more difficult for them than it is for someone with a clearer idea of what's going on.


Bzzt. Argument without proof, conspiracy theory. Counter-examples include peer-reviewed journals.
Bzzt! I've actually heard a democratic politician [I forget which one] praise Hillary Clinton because she "doesn't let the facts get in the way of what's right." Argument without proof my ass.

Bzzt. Argument without proof, argument based on origins, conspiracy theory, hyperbole.
Bzzt! I've seen proof of this every time I get into an argument with a leftist. You want proof, go look at some of their arguments.

"Capitalism is the system of coercive monopolies" versus "Capitalism breeds cutthroat competition."
"Capitalism debases man by creating hunger" versus "Capitalism subverts morality by creating affluence"
"Capitalist greed causes inflation" versus "The gold standard leads to an inadequate supply of money and credit."
"Capitalism is another name for miltaristic imperialism" versus "Conscription is necessary because no one would fight even a war for self-defense under a free system."
"Capitalism is hostile to invention [followed by stories about industrialists allegedly suppressing new discoveries]" versus "Capitalism leads to an intolerable rat-race of inventions."
"Capitalism is fine for the productive genius, but what about the common man?" versus "Capitalism is fine for the common man, but what about the genius [because a rock star makes more money than a physicist]."
"Capitalism is impracticable in our modern world--we are too advanced" and "Capitalism is inpracticable in the underdeveloped world--they are not advanced enough."

Some men have the grace to blush when these comparisons are drawn, but most attempt to evade by some sort of attack on Aristotleian logic, countering that they "use a dynamic, dialectic, and/or multivalued approach to thought."

You want proof, go argue with a socialist. You want to keep going "Bzzt" and throwing one liners in my face, stay here and argue theory with me.

The rest of your post is not worth my time, but if you're going to view it as a concession I'll be happy to condescend to the same level as you have with me.

Don't do it again. I don't like it.

"i would rather have a national service that works...i mean its free!"

FREE? FREE? It's not free!!! The NHS is not free! Well except if your on welfare/Social security etc.... What do you think that % of your pay goes to every month? (if you work that is!) On top of that one pays for any perscription (again unless your a welfare bod or on a pension!) on top of that we have long wait times, poor cleaning in hospitals, MRSA and god knows what else!

My personal way would be privatisation. Or the choice - if you want to go private then you should not have to contribute!

Free healthcare is a basic human right and that is something that can only be provided by a publicly owned and run service. There may be some problems with the NHS here in Scotland but at least everyone has access to it which is something that can't be said for a more backward country like the USA where over 40 million people have no health insurance. The best solution for improving the NHS is to nationalise any hospitals run by BUPA or other private companies and to massively increase the scandalously low taxes currently paid by big business and the rich.
It is NOT free, and what constitutes it as a right?

It is NOT free, and what constitutes it as a right?

It's a right because we have access to good healthcare and it would simply be a waste if this good healthcare isn't put to use. Since we are born in a society where we all men are supposed to be equal, it's techniquely a right...However, it's not always accessible to everyone...

It's a right because we have access to good healthcare and it would simply be a waste if this good healthcare isn't put to use. Since we are born in a society where we all men are supposed to be equal, it's techniquely a right...However, it's not always accessible to everyone...

Bollox... wtf are you going on about? :rolleyes:

Bollox... wtf are you going on about? :rolleyes:
I'm saying if Crystal Meth users who suffer severe burns could get healthcare at the expense of the state, then healthcare is pretty much a right...The only problem is it's just not always accessible if you don't pay horrendous amounts of money...

Wait, so you're saying the State should compete with itself? It's not competition when the money is all going to the same place....

non-pecuniary reward :rolleyes:
besides, managers play a key role in any organisation. give the manager a reward for, or incentive to be efficient, and it won't matter where the money goes. you think the managers of private firms don't operate in exactly the same way, when the money goes off to some multinational's coffers - especially as owners and managers are rarely the same any more
and yes the state should compete with itself. its actually how the NHS runs in this country (almost)... its bringing in the best elements of both systems



You talk about the corruption that would 'run rampant' under unfettered capitalism while systematically failing to see or refusing to see that it's actually a lot easier to do that sort of stuff the way you prefer to do things.

"Men who are immune to facts and logic have no choice but to traffic in fantasy. Hence the senseless projections we hear today about life under pure capitalism: 'What if roads were private property and the owners refused to let people drive on them?' 'What if commercial firefighters charged a million dollars to put out a fire?' 'What if unregulated television networks aired nothing but commercials and genitalia?' All of this is like asking: 'What if bakers refused to let people buy their bread?' 'What if surgeons charged a million dollars for an appendectomy?' 'What if an unregulated press brought out papers filled only with ads and obscenities?' (One rarely hears anyone ask: 'What if, under Socialism, a clerk in the People's Planning Commission nurses a hatred for some helpess worker?' or 'What if the top leader turns into a monster?' --yet these are daily realities under every version of collectivism.)

The most ludicrous of all the projections we hear is: "What if, under Capitalism, no one volunteers to help the truly helpless?" Such callousness never existed in early America; is it possible on a large scale only when men are crushed by poverty, thanks to statism; and/or when men feel mutual hared, thanks to being forced to subsist as prisoners in collectivist chain gangs.

Without a proper epistemology, men do not use their minds properly, and their political conclusions are correspondingly worthless. In today's culture, this principle works out as follows. Irrationalism leads the intellectuals to discard the possibility of independence (of the reality orientation) in favor of altruism, which leads them to conclude that capitalism is evil. Thereafter, however scandalously they drop context, rewrite history, or contradict themselves, they feel no shame; so long as they are anticapitalis, the feel noble. Their epistemonology, in short, permits them to manipulate the data as they choose--to reach any conclusions they like in regard to any matter of fact; and their ethics programs them to reach only statist conclusions

--Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I probably damned myself by stating the source, as it will undoubtedly be decried as merely being worhtless propaganda. Instead of doing that, for a change, try to prove Mr. Peikoff wrong. I'd have taken a stab at this myself, but it's already been said more eloquently.



first off, i said nothing about any corruption in a capitalist system - i assume that's indicative of the system anyway, but thats another issue ;)
i said that a private firm, in its need to be a profit maximiser as to not be forced out of the market through competition, would have to put profit above the needs or service of its clients. sure, serving the clients well may be part of what gets you a healthy profit, but the profit still comes first and, when we're talking about people's lives, the people should always come first above all other concerns.
economically speaking i can admit how it would be "best" to have inefficient healthcare firms run out of the marketplace, but again this isn't putting people's lives and health first. with state backing and money, this is no longer an issue.
through a quasi market system, competition between the nationalised firms can bring in similar levels of efficiency to the market-based scenario (evidently not actually the same efficicencies as with private firms) while maintaining the customers-first mandate, using a system of rewards and punishments/fines/disincentives (like being fired) to encourage managers to push for efficiency and discourage inefficiency.


and as for that long-ass quote, its a blasée attack against socialism and not really specific to this issue for a start. second off its a load of nonsense which seems to assume that the very same levels and forms of corruption are entirely not evident under capitalist systems :rolleyes:


Without a proper epistemology, men do not use their minds properly, and their political conclusions are correspondingly worthless
i particularly love that part. all the dude is saying is that 'if you don't agree with me you're a moron and your ideas are "worthless"'
all i can say to that is fuck off :rolleyes:

Goverment has no right being in the Private sector period, and that includes Health care. Wherever the G-man goes, things go to hell.

non-pecuniary reward :rolleyes:
besides, managers play a key role in any organisation. give the manager a reward for, or incentive to be efficient, and it won't matter where the money goes. you think the managers of private firms don't operate in exactly the same way, when the money goes off to some multinational's coffers - especially as owners and managers are rarely the same any more
and yes the state should compete with itself. its actually how the NHS runs in this country (almost)... its bringing in the best elements of both systems
This is something of a run-on argument, the point to which I'm not entirely certain I understand. My reply to your original hypothesis was that the same entity 'competing' against itself is by definition not competition. Your reply seems to be something to the effect that private corporations don't compete either? I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing any logic in that. Then again, I may not be understanding this response at all.


first off, i said nothing about any corruption in a capitalist system - i assume that's indicative of the system anyway, but thats another issue ;)
I've seen you do it before, and I am very aware of the fact that it would be your counter to any claim that healthcare shouldn't be nationalized. You're more than welcome to attempt to convince me that this isn't the case, but every time I advocate private control of most any production/service sector, the response is that the owners will do a substandard job as a result of corruption/misplaced priorities or what have you.

Your response probably would have been much, much different [and probably a lot flimsier] had I not stolen that particular bit of thunder.

i said that a private firm, in its need to be a profit maximiser as to not be forced out of the market through competition, would have to put profit above the needs or service of its clients.
Stop right there. If a company does not have any regard for the needs or service of it's client, it makes turning a profit impossible. The concept of profit presupposes these things; no one will make a ofrtune selling kicks in the ass, no matter how desperately people need them.

sure, serving the clients well may be part of what gets you a healthy profit, but the profit still comes first and, when we're talking about people's lives the people should always come first above all other concerns.
Bullshit. If a company were "morally" obligated to care for "the people" over everything else, they wouldn't be enjoying the real world, material success that they're enjoying right now. The people are being cared for when they subscribe to these products and services, at least to the extent that their preferences and wants are satisfied. If they weren't satisfied, these companies wouldn't exist. It's sort of impossible to turn a profit by discounting the "human element" completely which is what you seem to be arguing.

Proft comes first, but profit presupposes preference satisfaction, or "utility" for all you John Stuart Mill fans out there. Freedom does not come from limiting the device [the market] which above all else tells us just to what extent people's wants and needs are being met. A healthy market means people are getting what they want.

economically speaking i can admit how it would be best to have inefficient health firms run out of the marketplace, but again this isn't putting people's lives and health first. with state backing and money, this is no longer an issue.
Other people's lives first over what? My life? Freedom? Safety?

When I was a child, I used to read the Dinotopia books, as they were fantastic works of fiction and art. There was a simple plot, but the pictures were pretty and it enthralled me as a child. One of the placards displayed prominently in one of the dinosaur halls was a proclamation: "Others first, self last."

My mind conjured an image of an endless line of dinosaurs trudging to a watering hole, only to have the lead raptor abdicate and move to the back of line when his time came, since they all lived by this credo. No one got to drink the water because everyone was more concerned with giving it to other people. In the end, they all undoubtedly died of thirst.

The point of all of this is "Others first" is a completely unreaslitic and unworkable policy: it has absolutely no philosophical merit whatsoever. Somebody somewhere [even if it's a penniless bum] will have to put himself first, and when he does, this sweeping code decries him as immoral. If a 6 year old mind can instantly recognize the flaw in this system, it has got some serious problems.

however through a quasi market system, competition between the nationalised firms can bring in similar levels of efficiency to the market-based scenario while maintaining the customers-first mandate, using a system of rewards and punishments/fines/disincentives (like being fired) to encourage managers to push for efficiency and discourage inefficiency.
This is basically jsut a restatement of your original premise, which I have already answered twice. Try making new arguments instead of trotting out the same ones. I understand the concept, you needn't keep explaining it to me. The problem with most Marxists [to use a similar example] is that they don't think anyone else understands Marx. The few that actually do are funner to argue with.

and as for that long-ass quote, its a blasée attack against socialism and not really specific to this issue for a start. second off its a load of nonsense which seems to assume that the very same levels and forms of corruption are entirely not evident under capitalist systems :rolleyes:
Socialist governments have existed, and it is form them that the author is extrapolating his criticisms. A purely capitalist society has never existed. Furthermore, it's entirely pertinent to this discussion, since the only argument for nationalizing healthcare seems to be that the private sector is too corrupt to handle it. In some cases I'm sure they are, but it's an unfair generalization to make.

i particularly love that part. all the dude is saying is that 'if you don't agree with me you're a moron and your ideas are "worthless"'
all i can say to that is fuck off :rolleyes:
Tell me, from your experiences with Objectivism, did you really expect any less? Aren't we all actually trying to tell each other this when we have capitalist/communist arguments anyway? It should be pretty obvious that you think I'm full of shit, and I think you're full of shit: I'm just a bit more honest about it.

Furthermore, your comparison is a half-truth at best: it's actually possible to have a valid epistemic structure and disagree with someone else who has the same epistemic structure. It's a question of values. Peikoff and I, for example, have [from what I can tell] a completely identical epistemic structure, but he favors the war in Iraq and I do not.

Healthcare is not a right. In the American lexicon, a right is something you are allowed to do. Not something you deserve to receive. You are allowed to speak freely, you are allowed to live by-and-large without outside interference, You are allowed to believe whatever you damn well please, you are allowed to attempt to better your life by your own devices. You are not allowed to attempt to better you life with other people's stuff. Beggars are not allowed to break into your home a requisition you couch so as to allow themselves a place to sleep.

Now when using other people's stuff (against their will) occurs in the private sector it is called stealing. If someone goes into a hospital, uses your insurance and your money to pay for their healthcare, then that person will doubtlessly be arrested, but what is proposed in a national healthcare system, is tantamount to the government doing just that.

In essence, I don't believe that people have a right to a specific item in any way. People have rights to do stuff, but not to acquire stuff through the government.

Now, don't confuse this with a rant against taxation, I recognize that taxes are necessary to keep vital government functions (the military, the police force, and the like) functioning.

"Hey you, go here, do this or get arrested."

Yeah, same sentiment as the draft and eminent domain. Of which, I don't like either.

Quasi-libertarian signing off.

"Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these."--Leonard Peikoff

(So, I'm leaving this discussion now as per the fact that it's dinnertime and I don't feel like discussing this in tremendous detail right now.)

Now, time for my ideas. Those that know me can probably guess, but here it goes.
Society has no right to nationalize healthcare. In fact, it is morally wrong. Every man, woman, and child is master of his or her own genius, and can share it only in a way that he or she feels appropriate. No one should be allowed to coerce a person to share without just compensation. The government can, and will do this for a variety of reasons. But you would never here a socialist talk about bringing back guilds. That is because a guild, or an induustry organization for that matter, has no power to coerce its members. Governments can. If a private doctor exists in a state of nationalized healthcare, he will be punished. If a doctor works for free in a system of private healthcare, no one can punish him, save himself.
From a health policy standpoint, however, it leads to inefficiencies. Competition is the main engine of innovation. Take that away, and you get a stagnant system. Besides, doctors will naturally want to go to better jobs in different countries, for they wish to control their destinies.
I have opinions on payment, but they are irrelevant now. If healthcare is gonna be government subsidized, it better be subsidizing a private system. For I would prefer higher taxes to fund a nationwide payment plan to a system of government ownership of property.

Goverment has no right being in the Private sector period, and that includes Health care. Wherever the G-man goes, things go to hell.
Including the military? Or police? Why not leave them up to the private sector?

bump
Remember, this is not about who pays for healthcare. This is about who owns healthcare.

bump
Remember, this is not about who pays for healthcare. This is about who owns healthcare.
Ummm.... It's about both. If the public sector "owns" it, then everyone pays for it. If the private sector "owns" it, then the people who use the service pay for it.

The concept of paying for something sort of presupposes the fact that you will [or rather that you should ] own it afterwards. The above essentially amounts to splitting hairs.

Ummm.... It's about both. If the public sector "owns" it, then everyone pays for it. If the private sector "owns" it, then the people who use the service pay for it.

Some countries have national insurance programs that finance private sector healthcare. Think of it as a defense contractor. The government does not own Boeing or Raytheon. It has competitive bids from them.

Hey, mods? This thread is incomplete, and no one gets the point. I have created what I believe is a better thread on this. Could you lock this one for me? Thanks.

...