(Sarcasm)Whats wrong with America's healthcare system?

[shanedk]

The question is how was that wealth accumulated?

Not having to work as many hours is increased wealth. Not having to work in an outside environment unprotected from the elements is increased wealth.

The market grew because of more innovation.

And do you just think it was a complete coincidence that this innovation started taking off about the time we moved to a mostly-free market?

Furthermore, the family did not starve to death or otherwise they would have been died in the first 4 years of the child's life.

More ignorance. Look at genealogical records. Families used to have to have 10 kids so that 3 of them could grow to adulthood. This is the period of time where that turned around, and more kids were able to make it to adulthood.

 

[shanedk]

Better educational services allowed more scientific breakthroughs to be made

Oh, and by the way, schools in the US at the time (which were 100% non-government) were widely considered to be the best in the world. We started slipping once government started interfering.

 

[richi1173]

On farms, around dangerous equipment and animals, for even longer hours than they were later working in the factories. You make it sound like they were sitting in a room knitting or something; hardly.

This is just pure hilarity. The mechanization of farms did not occur until the late 19th hundreds, so there was no dangerous machinery to speak off in the 1870's. Animals are less dangerous than rotary saws and boiling hot kettles of steel, wouldn't you agree? I would take a bull over them anyday.

You're spouting dogma again. It was due to a lack of wealth in the economy. You can't will these things into being, no matter how many laws you pass. Why don't we just pass a law saying that everybody must be rich?

It takes a dogmatist to know a dogmatist. I would have to agree that minimum wage laws and organized labor were not the main reasons for families to be able to feed themselves. At least for the short term though, they helped. Losing 1 dollars an hour to fed a family is a noble cause if you ask me, even for a "robber baron".

Wealth has to accumulate over time, and the most efficient way of doing that is with the free market. Look at the end of this period, when government started taking over, and compare how much better it was than at the start. Our growth is PALTRY by comparison!

Again with the growth comparisons. I told you, the Transatlatlantic slave is comparatively equal or even greater to the Second Industrial Revolution.

I agree though, the market is the best way to obtain sustainable growth for everybody. As long as you give everybody the tools to obtain the sustainable growth.

 

[richi1173]

Outright bullshit.
All you did was an appeal to ridicule.
Shane and I already gave you the answer to that one.
Read our posts.
Also, I was debunking your claim that economic growth = people being worse off, even before the fruits of the labor begin to appear.
Or that we must have either economic growth, OR humane society.
I'm sorry but freedom of the economic sort and higher standards of living are NOT mutually exclusive, asshole.

Calm down dude.

What I meant was that the Transatlantic slave trade was equal or even greater in economic growth to the Second Industrial Revolution and therefore is not a good comparison to make when examining economic growth alone.

This is what I meant = "Just because a system has greater economic growth should we institute it? NO"

I cannot see how you interpreted that I think that economic growth = people being worse off. But I guess Chomsky rubs on people that way.

What you said was that "1. Slavery was ONLY profitable because of government interference in the market"

How was that addressing my point? You went overboard and immediately assumed that I meant economic growth = people being worse off.

Over time through work and resource use. How else can it be done? And yes, they did have education, but until the wealth increased to a point where the children didn't have to work, they wouldn't have been able to take full advantage of it, regardless of whether it was private, or public.
Private is better.

Not really, when public schooling was fully instituted in the 1870 the Second Industrial Revolution was kicking off in full swing. So, sorry to say, your observations are non-concordant

Also, resources come in many forms. New technologies created by educated individual like the Bessemer process for steel allowed it.

 

[richi1173]

Not having to work as many hours is increased wealth. Not having to work in an outside environment unprotected from the elements is increased wealth.

I agree.

And do you just think it was a complete coincidence that this innovation started taking off about the time we moved to a mostly-free market?

No, I do not think that it was pure coincidence. Your viewing me like a Communist when Im not. The free market drive for better and better perfection of a scientific principle was one if not the most key factor. However, I do not think that child labor abolition was fully due to the free market alone, like you. <--Sorry if that sounded like an insult, I didn't mean it to be.

More ignorance. Look at genealogical records. Families used to have to have 10 kids so that 3 of them could grow to adulthood. This is the period of time where that turned around, and more kids were able to make it to adulthood.

Your data source has many variables outside of starvation. The squalid conditions of urban life added a huge amounts of deaths to young children. Another reason it turned around, and equally important, was better understanding of diseases through Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory and thus the development off better sewer systems.

 

[richi1173]

Oh, and by the way, schools in the US at the time (which were 100% non-government) were widely considered to be the best in the world. We started slipping once government started interfering.

It was the massive number of kids being put into the system. However, it was a very good investment in the long run. It needs to be changed, I agree.

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

Calm down dude.

What I meant was that the Transatlantic slave trade was equal or even greater in economic growth to the Second Industrial Revolution and therefore is not a good comparison to make when examining economic growth alone.

You mean during that time, as a result OF the slaves, or something else.
If you don't want people to misunderstand you, word your posts better.
The slaves were one of the reasons it wasn't a pure free market as I said.
You're clearly trying to associate the economic growth with the slave trade (despite not providing a single source).
The only reason the slave trade, as an industry grew was because it was supported the king of England and by the government.
It impeded growth of the economy as a whole though.

This is what I meant = "Just because a system has greater economic growth should we institute it? NO"

Yes we should. It means people, all people will be better off, the poor, the middle class, etc.

I cannot see how you interpreted that I think that economic growth = people being worse off. But I guess Chomsky rubs on people that way.

I'll admit I might have misinterpreted what you said.
However, the fact remains:
Economic Growth and the population being well off is false dichotomy you keep spouting.

What you said was that "1. Slavery was ONLY profitable because of government interference in the market"

How was that addressing my point? You went overboard and immediately assumed that I meant economic growth = people being worse off.

It was the clear implication of your post.
Saying that during a time of economic growth, that there was all this atrocity.
The growth wasn't because of the slave trade, as I said, it wasn't profitable without government intervention, which required taxes, which lowered total domestic output via the broken window fallacy.

Not really, when public schooling was fully instituted in the 1870 the Second Industrial Revolution was kicking off in full swing. So, sorry to say, your observations are non-concordant

Also, resources come in many forms. New technologies created by educated individual like the Bessemer process for steel allowed it.

Actually, yes it is.
Watch Shane's video on the false dichotomy of politics for sources and evidence of why public schools are worse.
Same goes for the new technology, because of the free market which gave people incentive to innovate.

 

[richi1173]

Surhotchaperchlorome: But besides all the government intervention, was the system great when it came to economic growth? Of course it was. Just look at the sugar craze in the European cities. Millions of tons of sugar were sold by sugar plantation owners to their mother nation. Imagine the profits. Then, the mother nation manufactured finished goods for them.

Economic growth is not the sole indicator of a better system.

Im in the camp that says that slave labor was a consequence of the shortage of labor in the Americas caused by the decimation of the Native American population.

The taxes and the cost to import were nothing compared to the profits being made. Again, look at the sugar craze.

Actually, yes it is.
Watch Shane's video on the false dichotomy of politics for sources and evidence of why public schools are worse.
Same goes for the new technology, because of the free market which gave people incentive to innovate.

I agree that the full public school system is bad today and it does not meet the demands of the modern world. In my view, everybody should get a chance to go to a private institution through government financing the education. We already do anyways. Either that or a full reform of the education system to get rid of the Board of Education.

The free market is the great refiner and many times, like you said, the demander for a better technology. However, it is not the only thing working. The free market did not demand for Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of Disease. Curiosity and a great social demand pushed Pasteur to formulate it. There was no profit in mind.

Its not that the free market is bad, its just that it had no idea that the Theory even existed and when it was formulated, what practical applications to make of it. Then the French government realized that they could build sewers in order to help the population, and then the free market kicked in.

We might get banned for this, so you know, because we are off topic by a long shot.

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

Surhotchaperchlorome: But besides all the government intervention, was the system great when it came to economic growth? Of course it was. Just look at the sugar craze in the European cities. Millions of tons of sugar were sold by sugar plantation owners to their mother nation. Imagine the profits. Then, the mother nation manufactured finished goods for them.

Which would have worked better with property rights an economically free system.
That would have provided a reason to innovate, would have saved lives, and created even more economic growth.

Economic growth is not the sole indicator of a better system.

I never said it was.
But it is still very important.

I'm in the camp that says that slave labor was a consequence of the shortage of labor in the Americas caused by the decimation of the Native American population.

Something caused, or at least made worse, by government if memory serves.
Watch Shane's reply to Thunderf00t for a better and more in depth discussion (with sources) on this and on the slave labor issue.

The taxes and the cost to import were nothing compared to the profits being made. Again, look at the sugar craze.

Again, look at how much things could have been improved by using a free market system instead of an Authoritarian one.

I agree that the full public school system is bad today and it does not meet the demands of the modern world.

Agreed.

In my view, everybody should get a chance to go to a private institution through government financing the education.

OK, if the government funds it for everyone like that, how can it be called "private education"?
That sounds more like socialized education.
Yet most government (federal) spending goes into education, it gets eaten up by the bureaucracy.
Just look at the Bush Administration.
Education funding skyrocketed under him (see the video from afq2007 on the stimulus package for details), and yet it didn't help education, and probably even made it worse.

Either that or a full reform of the education system to get rid of the Board of Education.

I do agree that the BoE needs to die.

The free market is the great refiner and many times, like you said, the demander for a better technology. However, it is not the only thing working. The free market did not demand for Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of Disease. Curiosity and a great social demand pushed Pasteur to formulate it. There was no profit in mind.

I'm not saying the free market will cure all ales.
I'm saying that it helps, and can help scientific progress.
Is it any coincidence that the same civilizations listed by thunderf00t as the "most scientific" also happen to be the most free?
The market couldn't demand something that didn't exist yet.
Free market doesn't mean that profit is good.
It just means people are free to take place in voluntary transactions.
I don't know much about the climate at the time, but if it's just curiosity and social demand, it sounds like the free market could do that too.
Why do we need government interference for people to be curious, for society to demand social change through science and boost everyone's standard of living through it?
That still could have happened both in and as a result of a free market.

Its not that the free market is bad, its just that it had no idea that the Theory even existed and when it was formulated, what practical applications to make of it. Then the French government realized that they could build sewers in order to help the population, and then the free market kicked in.

The free market isn't a person. It's a system of organizing and using our scarce resources.
It also happens to be the best.
Think about it: given a bunch of people in the free market competing.
one uses science to fuel advances, putting him ahead of all his competition, including the big guys.
If they want to succeed, they'll rely on paid scientists and engineers to try to get ahead, or they'll fail.
It's really that simple.

We might get banned for this, so you know, because we are off topic by a long shot.

It's your topic, you should be in control and be able to direct it; so I don't see how.
And even if it did happen, it doesn't bother me.
I've been banned from places before.

 

[shanedk]

This is just pure hilarity. The mechanization of farms did not occur until the late 19th hundreds, so there was no dangerous machinery

Did I say "machinery"? No, I didn't! I'll thank you to stop LYING!!!

Tools that were used to till and mow and reap etc. were quite dangerous, especially when they had to be wielded by a child.

Animals are less dangerous than rotary saws

Animals are unpredictable, and their mass makes them quite dangerous, especially when they become enraged. At least a saw you're in 100% control of.

It takes a dogmatist to know a dogmatist.

What, we're using kindergarten comebacks now? No, ALL it takes to know a dogmatist is to observe that someone is in complete denial of the evidence and refuses to use even basic logic.

I would have to agree that minimum wage laws and organized labor were not the main reasons for families to be able to feed themselves. At least for the short term though, they helped.

The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence says that they are not helped by these policies AT ALL, not even in the short term, and are ultimately hurt quite badly.

And you completely IGNORED my point about how you were treating one point in the growth curve as if it were the ultimate result.

 

[shanedk]

By the way, here's one article detailing why it's better for EVERYONE to have school choice:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040318/news_lz4e18salis.html

School choice opponents claim that choice harms public schools. Research, however, shows the opposite. A new study published by Harvard economist Carolyn Hoxby addresses the question: "Do public schools respond constructively to competition induced by school choice, by raising their own productivity?" The answer: Yes, they do, and the benefits are greatest where large numbers of students are eligible for choice.

The fact that choice benefits public schools, not just students who switch to private schools, is a key aspect of school choice. Because public schools improve due to competition, school choice benefits reach beyond those students who take advantage of the opportunity to attend a private school with a voucher or tax credit scholarship. Because competition forces both public and private schools to improve, choice is like a rising tide that lifts all boats. Even students whose parents don't shop around for a private school will benefit because their existing public schools will get better.

 

[richi1173]

Which would have worked better with property rights an economically free system.
That would have provided a reason to innovate, would have saved lives, and created even more economic growth.

The system was pseudo-free. Only the white land owning minority had any kind of property rights. Slaves were traded as a commodity rather than as labor.

Just to be consice, here is what is not measured in economic (GDP) growth: Leisure time (the hours that we don't work is not measured in GDP), non-market economic activities (volunteering), environmental quality and resource depletion (air quality), quality of life (low crime rates, minimal traffic congestion, active civic organizatinons, and open space), poverty and economic inequality (economic growth is measured in the aggregate)

Something caused, or at least made worse, by government if memory serves.
Watch Shane's reply to Thunderf00t for a better and more in depth discussion (with sources) on this and on the slave labor issue.

Only after the Civil War is when slavery became unappealing which is what Shane discussed. Before, 15th - 18th century, it was a more preferable to buy slaves than to hire labor.

OK, if the government funds it for everyone like that, how can it be called "private education"?
That sounds more like socialized education.
Yet most government (federal) spending goes into education, it gets eaten up by the bureaucracy.
Just look at the Bush Administration.
Education funding skyrocketed under him (see the video from afq2007 on the stimulus package for details), and yet it didn't help education, and probably even made it worse.

Actually it can. For example, if you go to an institution such as the University of Miami, which is privately owned, and the government funds your education (it gives you the money to pay for it) you are still going to private school. There are many many people I know who go to the University of Miami while receiving Federal Financial Aid. I think that is a good system, and since we already pay for the education anyways through taxes, it would not matter. I still think that government should step in to prevent things like creationism, which it did, from being taught in our schools.

I think though, a far better system is the one I proposed in the post titled "Conservatives want to privatized education"

I'm not saying the free market will cure all ales.
I'm saying that it helps, and can help scientific progress.
Is it any coincidence that the same civilizations listed by thunderf00t as the "most scientific" also happen to be the most free?
The market couldn't demand something that didn't exist yet.
Free market doesn't mean that profit is good.
It just means people are free to take place in voluntary transactions.
I don't know much about the climate at the time, but if it's just curiosity and social demand, it sounds like the free market could do that too.
Why do we need government interference for people to be curious, for society to demand social change through science and boost everyone's standard of living through it?
That still could have happened both in and as a result of a free market.

I agree. However, government should only fund the research indirectly through they educational system I described above, not manage it.

I
The free market isn't a person. It's a system of organizing and using our scarce resources.
It also happens to be the best.
Think about it: given a bunch of people in the free market competing.
one uses science to fuel advances, putting him ahead of all his competition, including the big guys.
If they want to succeed, they'll rely on paid scientists and engineers to try to get ahead, or they'll fail.
It's really that simple.

I know its not a person, but its convenient to characterize it that way. I agree with the rest. I told you guys, Im no Communist. What you describe also was the refining process I talked about.

 

[richi1173]

Did I say "machinery"? No, I didn't! I'll thank you to stop LYING!!!

Sorry, I misread.

Tools that were used to till and mow and reap etc. were quite dangerous, especially when they had to be wielded by a child.

Ohh please. I have handled farm tools such as machetes, hoes, when I was 6 years old and its still far safer than cutting beef or wood with a band saw or rotary saw. Its also safer than working with boiling hot steel.

Animals are unpredictable, and their mass makes them quite dangerous, especially when they become enraged. At least a saw you're in 100% control of.

But those that make a saw less dangerous, no.

And you completely IGNORED my point about how you were treating one point in the growth curve as if it were the ultimate result.

Im not, Im just comparing times of economic growth.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I go out for a few days and hell breaks lose.

Strawman.
He's referring to the service the nurses and doctors provide.
He's not referring to them specifically.

Contradiction unless you believe that services that someone provides are provided for themselves without someone's intervention then it would probably make some sense. Don't know, I don't live in bizarre world.

And even if it was the case, it would still be irrelavent.
The supply, demand and equilibrium principle applies to both goods and services.
This is something taught in any basic economics class.

Here is the problem with supply/demand equilibrium when applied to people:
1. You can cut short on production of goods, you can't cut short on the amount of people
2. You can trade away the interests of the buyers to the global interest of the manufacturer, there is no global manufacturer of people.

No, they're being treated as if their skills and knowledge are valuable. Because they ARE. I don't know how deep your mind must be steeped in political dogma to see that as a BAD thing!

If you care about the value of the knowledge then you would pay him according to how much his/her knowledge can provide and not how much competition for their services exists.

You're not stupid, just ignorant and dogmatic.
Free market economics (in their pure form) don't exist today. The closet thing we have to it in the present time is Hong Kong.
OK, you're wrong on that. The USA in the 19th century was about the closet example to a free market economy known. There was no inflation, and their worst growth years trounced our best ones today.
Watch Shane's video on the free market, and his response to thunderf00t & TheAmazingAtheist to see that it does work.

This is where you sound exactly like Shane in disguise, when people don't agree with you, you call them ignorant and dogmatic without ever justifying.
Although I would argue about the free market existence, it is completely pointless to do so because we have several examples for why free market (i.e. business and profit despite the costs) which I believe you are mature enough to understand without giving you an example.
And Shane's video is nothing more than a pathetic and "errorfull" excuse in order to promote his party political agenda. He builds a point a different by those supported by either thunderf00t & TheAmazingAtheist (strawman) and despite of that he couldn't even address them without making grave mistakes and flat out lies.
If you think that has any merit what so ever you are clearly mistaken.

I understand that your worldview cannot view your fellow human beings are valuable unless they can be exploited for the profit of people who neither work nor contribute.

This is a horrific and disgusting slight against my character, and anyone who knows me knows how untrue it is. I demand that you apologize!

Well I say it that you cannot view your fellow human beings as valuable unless they can be exploited for the profit of people who neither work nor contribute. And do not expect and excuse from me. I don't have trouble saying this to your face (metaphorically speaking sense neither of us share a similar geographical location).
It is true either you realize it or not! And saying that it isn't so will never change that.

For example, child labor laws were installed to protect children from the hazards of the work place. Not only is this socially right but in the end it would be economically profitable. A child's body is still growing and the stresses from the workplace, both physical and mental, would damage him and impede their progress to become a better worker. If you have a person of 18, he/she, logically, would be able to produce more than a child of 11. He/she would also be more stronger, physically and mentally, and would be less prone to ware down because of disease or fatigue.
Not only that, but public education for these children has allowed countless innovations.

Not quite.
1. When you talk about economical profitable, the first question you have to answer is to who? But let's forget that for a second.
2. A child working sense childhood would make him more proficient at what he does, and it doesn't real matter that they grow proficient or not, all it has to happen is for them survive until the next generation of children arrives to be exploited, after that they could die for all they care.
For some reason child labor laws were installed it was not to protect future economical interests but to protect the children's quality of life.
Better yet look at this:

And we had children working in steel mills.

Which was FAR better than what they were doing before. Oh, and the choice was, either the child works, or the family starves.
I really wonder how you dogmatists expect it should work! How do you go immediately from struggling farmers to nuclear families where only one parent works?

If this doesn't speak for itself then IT SHOULD!
I don't know what would be better than to have children being exploited for absolutely no money at all then"¦ I don't know"¦ SOCIAL FAIRNESS FOR THE WORKING CLASS THAT WOULD ENABLE ADULTS TO HAVE FAIR PAYMENT FOR FAIR JOBS! AND NOT KEEPING THE CONTENT PROVIDER ON THE SHIT WHILE THE BOSS HAS 5 HOTELS AND A COLLECTION OF 20 FERRARIS.

Which by the way richi1173 thumbs up for:

Oh, and the choice was, either the child works, or the family starves.

Which was due to the lack of minimum wage or organized labor. Also it was a lack of socio-economic mobility caused by lack of social services like education.
I may be a dogmatist in your eyes, but just look in the mirror and you will see another one.

Yes, because you look at it dogmatically and self-righteously from an ivory tower which that very same system built! You arrogantly condemn the conditions they were in, while you yourself stand on their shoulders.

You are the dogmatic! You are the one trying to dismiss any sort of argument that doesn't support your point of view without addressing them (simply dismissing as dogmatic). I have stated once by it is never too much to expose the Irony from you accusing other people from being creationists while it is you in fact that put your finger in the hears and scream "lalalala.. I can't hear you".

Gee, as if I didn't see THIS coming a mile away.
Look at some of the comments in Shane's videos on the free market.
1. Slavery was ONLY profitable because of government interference in the market (I never said that time was completely free market and anyone who read my post should be able to see that).

2. As for the child labor, it was gone when enough wealth was created via the market growth: said children didn't have to work anymore to support their families. and the market got rid of it on its own. If they hadn't been able to work, they and/or their families most likely would have starved.

*looks below as I write this...*
Adding to what Shane pointed out.

1. Slavery existed before any sort of government in history has any say about anything called "market" in the modern sense (or traditional sense for that matter).
2. Market didn't got rid of it on its own, if it was for the market they would still be there, because for someone to have a say you must have capital, and exploited people don't have capital.

*facepalm*
Look at Shane's videos on the matter.
The social issues are the reason why we support a free economy.
Because it makes everyone richer and better off than they otherwise would have been
Also, we "worship" the idea of a free market no more than the idea of gravity or evolution.

Wrong, it makes some people rich, and that people don't have to give a damn about you, and guess what THEY DON'T!
And you do "worship the idea of a free market" that you didn't realize the mistakes made by Shane and pass them without thinking.

Watch Shane's video on the political false dichotomy.
He provides evidence that child labor laws were enacted only after the market get rid of child labor on its own; and only prevents teens today who want to work and prevents them from getting experience they'll need later in life.

I going to have to repeat myself because once you make the mistake you make it systematic.
For some reason child labor laws were installed it was not to protect future economical interests but to protect the children's quality of life. It doesn't strike without irony that the example that you give to support your point of view points to the opposite direction.

Which was due to the lack of minimum wage or organized labor.

You're spouting dogma again.

Pre-emptive dismiss.

It was due to a lack of wealth in the economy. You can't will these things into being, no matter how many laws you pass.

Lack of wealth in the economy? Exploited countries are by far the most competitive, most profitable markets! What do you think that wealth is? Is it something that grows on the trees?
Have you ever noticed the social difference between classes for instance in India? If there is something that doesn't lack of is wealth.

Why don't we just pass a law saying that everybody must be rich?

Why wouldn't we just pass laws saying that you cannot build strawmans?

Wealth has to accumulate over time, and the most efficient way of doing that is with the free market.

Wrong the fastest way to do it is to build up a leveled market, you have no market if goods are not sold or bought, and you don't goods being sold or bought if people have less money due to unfair salaries due to unregulated capitalism (that doesn't give a damn about you).

I'm sorry but freedom of the economic sort and higher standards of living are NOT mutually exclusive, asshole.

They are mutually exclusively for the majority of the world's population, the money doesn't stretch. If your boss wants a higher standard of living he is going to increase his income by decreasing yours, and Economic freedom allows that. That is the picture of economic freedom, is to allow anything.

Over time through work and resource use. How else can it be done?

I don't know, by allowing people to acquire the resources that you provide in the first place.
Here is the market made simple. I make shoes you make pants, if you don't have money to buy my shoes I will not make money to buy your pants. But if you have money to buy my shoes I will make money to buy your pants and we both get pants and shoes while none of us gaining or losing anything.

Private is better.

Because? (They are able to teach you creationism, ops.. sorry you had it coming)

Oh, and by the way, schools in the US at the time (which were 100% non-government) were widely considered to be the best in the world. We started slipping once government started interfering.

There would never be any schools if it wasn't for the early public education to make the common people literate instead of just the church members, you where saying?

The slaves were one of the reasons it wasn't a pure free market as I said.

I never seen in the definition of free market an exception for slaves.

You're clearly trying to associate the economic growth with the slave trade (despite not providing a single source).

Strawman, he is associating correctly slave trade and free market. Free market and economic growth isn't the same.

The only reason the slave trade, as an industry grew was because it was supported the king of England and by the government.
It impeded growth of the economy as a whole though.

Portugal had a worldwide slave trade before England started a kick at it, and it helped produce wealth enough to make Portugal one of the richest superpowers of the time. In fact slave trade has been a profitable sense the beginning of the history of man. Slavery isn't an 18th century fashion.

Economic Growth and the population being well off is false dichotomy you keep spouting.

Economic Growth and the population being well off is not dichotomy, they are not necessarily even seen as opposing. And no one spouts that, that is your projection, you are the one that have the fix idea that Free market, Economic Growth and the population being well off are the same thing, and when people attack free market you think that they are against everything else.

Saying that during a time of economic growth, that there was all this atrocity.

It is an historical fact, people are not against economic growth, they are against free market.

The growth wasn't because of the slave trade, as I said, it wasn't profitable without government intervention, which required taxes, which lowered total domestic output via the broken window fallacy.

Mistakes tend to be systematic! I have already addressed this.

Not really, when public schooling was fully instituted in the 1870 the Second Industrial Revolution was kicking off in full swing. So, sorry to say, your observations are non-concordant

Also, resources come in many forms. New technologies created by educated individual like the Bessemer process for steel allowed it.

Actually, yes it is.
Watch Shane's video on the false dichotomy of politics for sources and evidence of why public schools are worse.

Actually it is the other way around, private schools don't require a minimal standard, they need a public set standard. Secondly it is a very common practice to have admission tests to enter private schools in order to select the brightest students (and thus virtually increasing the average success rate at this stage by teaching absolutely nothing), and yet they don't do so extraordinarily better of (in fact the top students are all from public schools"¦ ops!).

Which would have worked better with property rights an economically free system.
That would have provided a reason to innovate, would have saved lives, and created even more economic growth.

1. Do not cluster property rights and free economy together, they are not the same thing, they are not even at the same level. Property right is a specific policy, economic freedom is a trend of policies, and one doesn't even imply the other.
2. And that isn't in any way a reason to innovate. A reason to innovate is to get more money to buy more and better quality of life. Or mainly because of the intellectual curiosity of the people studying in the fields (for which several important contributors died poor and alone in order to build their ideas, but that nobody remembers). The majority of the money invested in research and development is used to purchase infrastructure, instrument and materials. Unfortunately there isn't too much investment in research and development as it would be ideal, and professionals working in the different fields don't get paid has much as they worth. And I talk whit knowledge of cause.

I now grew tiered to address the rest of the nonsense provided here and I will try to do it tomorrow.

 

[Synystyr]

I feel out of place here... I skimmed through most of this and found the great dichotomy: government healthcare vs. "free market" healthcare. I guess the only good thing to come of this authoritarian jerk-fest is that this is conclusive proof there is no god.

 

[digitalbuddha48]

I don't know if Sally Pipes has been brought up in this thread but I had to read her book for a Medical Economics class. I strongly urge you to read her book because you can read it for free at the website linked at the bottom. In her book she addresses the top ten myths of health care.

Myth One: Government Health Care Is More Efficient
Myth Two: We're Spending Too Much on Health Care
Myth Three: Forty-Six Million Americans Can't Get Health Care
Myth Four: High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs
Myth Five: Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Six: Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance
Myth Seven: Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Eight: We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans
Myth Nine: Health Information Technology Is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs
Myth Ten: Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America's
Solutions: Markets, Consumer Choice, and Innovation

http://www.medpolitics.com/content/The-Top-Ten-Myths-American-Health-Care-A-Citizens-Guide

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

I don't know if Sally Pipes has been brought up in this thread but I had to read her book for a Medical Economics class. I strongly urge you to read her book because you can read it for free at the website linked at the bottom. In her book she addresses the top ten myths of health care.

Myth One: Government Health Care Is More Efficient
Myth Two: We're Spending Too Much on Health Care
Myth Three: Forty-Six Million Americans Can't Get Health Care
Myth Four: High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs
Myth Five: Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Six: Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance
Myth Seven: Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs
Myth Eight: We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans
Myth Nine: Health Information Technology Is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs
Myth Ten: Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America's
Solutions: Markets, Consumer Choice, and Innovation

http://www.medpolitics.com/content/The-Top-Ten-Myths-American-Health-Care-A-Citizens-Guide

#1: Duh.
#2: bullshit. As shane pointed out, if we got rid of the government intervention such that was equivalent to the amount during the year she mentions (1950), costs would be FAR lower: We ARE paying far too much; period.
#3: I know this.
#4: it doesn't help...
#5: ok...
#6: no kidding.
#7: doesn't surprise me
#8: absolutely
#9: not a silver bullet, but it can help
#10: absolutely

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't know if Sally Pipes has been brought up in this thread but I had to read her book for a Medical Economics class. I strongly urge you to read her book because you can read it for free at the website linked at the bottom. In her book she addresses the top ten myths of health care.

Those "myths"? They are mostly true. Your source is a liar and an idiot.

Of course, for many sociopathic anti-humanity assholes, any amount of care that doesn't create massive profits is evil... and allowing every poor person to die of disease is a "good thing" because poor folks really don't deserve to live anyway. That's the position you are supporting.

ETA: The source you are so proud of asserts that American children have no right to food, which means that the author finds the idea of children starving to death acceptable. What kind of insanity is that?

 

[digitalbuddha48]

Of course, for many sociopathic anti-humanity assholes, any amount of care that doesn't create massive profits is evil... and allowing every poor person to die of disease is a "good thing" because poor folks really don't deserve to live anyway. That's the position you are supporting.

If you actually read my post I didn't say I supported her at all. I said I had ( as in forced) to read her book for a class and that I felt she made some good points. Don't be so quick to call out what you think someone supports when you obviously jump to conclusions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If you actually read my post I didn't say I supported her at all. I said I had ( as in forced) to read her book for a class and that I felt she made some good points. Don't be so quick to call out what you think someone supports when you obviously jump to conclusions.

Please, by all means... show me where I am wrong by showing me the "good points" in her sociopathic screed against civilization and basic human decency?

Also, it seems rather dishonest of you to try to distance yourself from something that you "strongly urge" others to read. I didn't jump to any conclusion that wasn't suggested by your own words.