It's a continuum, perhaps.

There are, as I said, things that are legitimately common goods- roads, defense, etc. There are others that don't fall into the category of a common good, but are just individual needs that everyone has- food, shelter, health care, etc. And yes, we're societal animals and nobody is or should want to be completely and purely "independent" of everyone else in a literal sense. But there remains such a thing as basic self-sufficiency, and universal socialized programs do not advance individual self-sufficiency.

Not really sure why people seem to be getting upset over this. It's not an insult, and it's virtually tautological. It just reflects a different set of values, or a significantly different emphasis in values.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

the argument that gets advanced and that resonates with people is that health care is simply too expensive for most people to afford.

That's another way of saying that it is inefficient.

No, it really isn't.

It would be most efficient for me to buy paper towels at Costco. I don't, however, buy my paper towels at Costco. I can still afford paper towels. I'm not especially concerned that my paper towel buying habits are not optimally efficient.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

are you being entirely sincere here? 'people have been getting upset over this' since the dawn of civilization, i think.

that it's a continuum is certainly self-evident; the hard part is deciding where, exactly, on that continuum a given program or state ought to plunk itself. and your sweeping statements about other stuff fall flat, for me.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Don't think anyone is getting upset here. You just seem to have some misconceptions over what socialized medicine actually looks like in practice.

We "could" have gone to a US-style Medicaid model to cover those who cannot cover themselves. That said,the US had (maybe still has?) a lot of problems with people not qualifying for Medicaid but still being unable to afford their own care. The most effective way to ensure that no-one slips through cracks is to eliminate the cracks. Cover everyone. Cover the costs through taxes. Done.

The Canadian systems have lots of problems too, which vary by province. But we do make sure that everyone can at least get a basic level of care, if they need it.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

In this context, the criticism of the costs of healthcare were largely driven by the real or perceived lack of efficiency in the system. We aren't talking about paper towels.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Wringing all the efficiency out of it isn't going to fix two problems. One is we have an aging, unhealthy population that needs a lot of healthcare. Two we have really good medicine, a lot of which costs a good bit to provide.

You just seem to have some misconceptions over what socialized medicine actually looks like in practice.

In what way?


The most effective way to ensure that no-one slips through cracks is to eliminate the cracks.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm saying it doesn't maximize self-sufficiency.

The most effective to to ensure that nobody goes hungry might be to give everyone a food allowance, covering everyone. You could still buy extra food if you want, but you'd get enough to cover the nutritional basics. That might be a wildly efficient system, and some people might be very happy with it. It just isn't a system that encourages or enables self-sufficiency. And it would be unlikely to be adopted by a people who felt that most people can and therefore should provide for themselves. It would only be likely to get passed if there's a perception that a significant amount of people would go hungry because they aren't capable of providing for their own dietary needs.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In this context, the criticism of the costs of healthcare were largely driven by the real or perceived lack of efficiency in the system.

Maybe in Canada. Not here. Here, the criticism has been driven by horror stories about people with massive medical bills and their disastrous consequences on people, and by the reality that many people have no realistic chance of affording health insurance on their own. Efficiency of the system overall has little to nothing to do with it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

 
"One is we have an aging, unhealthy population that needs a lot of healthcare." - yup, same as Canada and much of Europe.

"Two we have really good medicine, a lot of which costs a good bit to provide."

And how much of that "really good medicine" is medically unnecessary?

I'm not saying that efficiency is the be-all and end all, but it is a substantial reason that healthcare costs are high. The current system encourages lots of unnecessary stuff. It's your system, if you want the unnecessary stuff then have at 'er.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

if you say so. I was following the US debate for some time, but then I tend to ignore hyperbole and one-off sob stories. The way I was interpreting a lot of the statements is that ACA was supposed to bring costs down and help make things more efficient. There are lots of problems with the ACA (it's a middle child, IMO, pardon the expression), neither one thing nor the other. Should've either gone all the way to single payer, or gone a completely different direction.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

My point is that Lucky Charms in the US are made in Michigan and sent to the Grocery store warehouse where they are sent to the store. The cost per box wholesale is lower the more you purchase. In Bermuda off the bat the price is higher because the wholesale price is higher. Now that smaller lot is shipped to a port and loaded on a ship and shipped to Bermuda where it is unloaded and sent to the store. In all likelihood there is at least one more step probably two where a pallet is broken down and repacked. And yes there's a tax. That's just a straight import of a US product.

wholesale price is a function of the size of the market, not specifically anything to do with being an island. One of the factors I specifically pointed out was that BDA is a small market. That's not unique to being an island.

The actual incremental shipping cost of sending products to Bermuda as opposed to, say, Sydney NS, is marginal. In Sydney, you are either paying for a long haul trucker, or getting the container shipped to Halifax, where it may or may not be broken down, and then reloaded onto a truck, driven to Sydney, unloaded, unpacked, etc.

The difference is that breaking down the pallet locally, stocking the shelves, and so on is performed at $40 / hour rather than $11.50, and the government charges an import duty of anywhere between 0 and 150%, depending on the goods. ETA - most foods are between 5-10%, with some being 0% and some higher. Ice cream is something like 22.5%

further ETA - I looked it up and breakfast cereals have an import duty rate of 0%, so bad example on my part. but that still doesn't change the larger point, which is that the local cost of labour is a much higher factor in the cost of goods than shipping.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I live on an island. Everything we get is shipped in from Vancouver. Most goods are more expensive in Vancouver then here.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

what is the population of the island? what is the infrastructure, can it handle large(ish) ships, or are you ferrying goods? and how much more expensive are you talking about?

That's my point. Many goods in BDA are double the price as compared to the US. shipping costs are just an incremental amount

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

The problem with this discussion is that some people have no clue what the definition of socialism.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1. 
   1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
   
2. 
   2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
   
3. 
   3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
   

When someone is calling Canada or any Nordic country for socialists or saying that the countries is organized after a socialist model, they have need to go back to school.


Norway is a social democracy based on capitalism.

X2

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot