[starcraftzzz]

------From my view more time is spent bashing Medicare SS of which both are more efficient then the private market.------
How would you measure that?

Lets see two countries used to have govt SS and have privatized them. Second we can take the inputs into SS and measure there outputs compared them to that of private sector accounts.

Social security in particular funds the federal government which causes trillion dollar deficits every year. A complete malinvestment.

The private secto has 3.5times more debt the govt, so using your logic the private sector has mare "malinveement" then govt. So try again.

The vast majority of families in America have mortgages with higher rates than social security. It is irrational to pay a higher interest rate on a mortgage loan and buy a lower interest bond via social security. This inefficiency costs hundreds of billions per year. What you will likely show is that social security administration costs a fraction of a percent to maintain, but you are only seeing half the equation if the governments spending of the money is wasted, which is made whole either by taxes or the slavery of future children.

I see so according to you paying money to shuffle paperwork around is not wasteful, but paying money so seniors aren't in poverty is...

Medicare is structured to always beat the private market. The game-theory mechanism design is that doctors massively raise prices for the average Joe and a discount to Medicare leaving massively higher medical expenses for everyone. You cannot separate out the large negative influence of Medicare impacted on the private market.

So according to you doctors will chose to work at a loss... Its odd that more doctors accept Medicare then private insurance when according to you doctors lose money for treating Medicare patients . So try again.

------If the corporate is so much easier focus on that; plus anti-corporatism probably polls better then letting grandp and grandma die and starve because govt is bad or something...------
I don't care about polls. I like to debate challenging subjects, not what 1+1 equals.

Fair enough.

------stopping rampant pollution would be to make corporate taxes progressive.------
This is embarrassing. The way to stop pollution is to tax pollution or outlaw pollution. One of the most basic rules of economics is incentives matter. The libertarian solution to pollution is to treat it as a property right violation. A polluter would have to either get agreements to be able to pollute or pay triple damages to those that are injured from said pollution. The purpose of many US government pollution regulations is to SHIELD corporations from lawsuits.

I see so your position results in people getting suck from pollution and have to spend lots of time and money using large corporations. But please show me some examples of your view actually working/happening in the real world on a decent scale.
Without govt regulations such as the Clean Air act the economy would of lost trillions of dollars and lots of lives. Why do you oppose saving money and lives?

[starcraftzzz]

------------It amazes me how ignorant you are.
It amazes me that you manage to find data, but are unable to interpret it correctly.
-------http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
^Privatized SS in Chile and UK resulted in administration cost increasing by 13-20 times.
1) We're talking about privatized SS. This is not the same as fully free market SS, as privatization is a form of government intervention. You are not comparing free market versus public, but one form of public with another.
2) Are administration costs always bad? Maybe the 'public' SS did too little administration?

1) So according to you the private sector is a form of govt intervention. Ridiculous like always
2) So according to you paying lots of money to shuffle paper around isn't bad. If only we spent another trillion dollars having people filling out paper work maybe then we'd thrive.

-------http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib161-2/
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives\--------
3) Since the government totally dominates SS, this of course influences resources available for private initiatives
4) "39% out of poverty" does not include the alternatives that would arise if government did nothing
5) This article is about partial privatization, which means that it is still under the control of the government.
6) Skimming through the article I could not find anything about the returns. But what is the return of SS? Surely, its not expressed in monetary terms as SS is not in it for the money.

3) Yes and comparing SS to those private initiatives we find that SS results in less inputs and more outputs
4) So according to you more seniors being in poverty is meaningless...
5) Partial privatization as the govt letting SS inputs be sent tot he private sector.

[mikema63]

you really shouldn't be that angry/insulting to people, if it really pisses you off so much to talk to libertarians (or anyone that questions your logic) then you really should't post in their forums.

[TropicalK]

The private secto has 3.5times more debt the govt, so using your logic the private sector has mare "malinveement" then govt. So try again.

Debt and deficit are different things. Total private sector profits are massive. Total public sector profits are massively negative. Try again.

I see so according to you paying money to shuffle paperwork around is not wasteful, but paying money so seniors aren't in poverty is...

Strawman, I do not believe that the paper jobs in the US are productive.

So according to you doctors will chose to work at a loss... Its odd that more doctors accept Medicare then private insurance when according to you doctors lose money for treating Medicare patients . So try again.

I find it amazing that you know my positions before I say them. Private insurance is terrible. What I advocate is lowering the cost of healthcare, so cash transactions can freely take place. What exists now is a sham.

[starcraftzzz]

you really shouldn't be that angry/insulting to people, if it really pisses you off so much to talk to libertarians (or anyone that questions your logic) then you really should't post in their forums.

I'd say the same thing you you consdiering you never really post anything of value.

[starcraftzzz]

-------The private sector has 3.5times more debt the govt, so using your logic the private sector has more "malinveement" then govt. So try again.
-----
Debt and deficit are different things.
Total private sector profits are massive.

Really? Yea that banking crises really was a massive amount of profit for the country...

------I see so according to you paying money to shuffle paperwork around is not wasteful, but paying money so seniors aren't in poverty is...-----
Strawman, I do not believe that the paper jobs in the US are productive.

Then dont tell us that more of those paper jobs would be a good thing...

----------So according to you doctors will chose to work at a loss... Its odd that more doctors accept Medicare then private insurance when according to you doctors lose money for treating Medicare patients . So try again.------
I find it amazing that you know my positions before I say them. Private insurance is terrible. What I advocate is lowering the cost of healthcare, so cash transactions can freely take place. What exists now is a sham.

No its simply that you have no idea what you are talking about therefore you have no idea what you actually say because you are so clueless.

[mikema63]

says the guy who just posts a few links and spends the rest of the time calling everyone else idiots.

at least i do my own thinking

[starcraftzzz]

says the guy who just posts a few links and spends the rest of the time calling everyone else idiots.

at least i do my own thinking :hmm:

See this is the problem with Libertarians like you you think that evidence is stupid... mostly because all your policy preferences when practiced in reality are total failures.\
Another problem is that according to you your "random thoughts" are more relevant the how the real world operates.
Just look at the difference, all of your posts consist of "your evidence/reality is not correct because I can laugh at it" vrs all of my pots that are "hey this evidence/research/how the real world works is the opposite of you say.
It is weird that when confronted with facts your response is " LOL you wrong"