>omg why not just let the government run healthcare, thatll fixx all our problems!!!
>omg health insurance companies/big pharma are so greedy and ebil b/c they try to profit off of cancer medicine!!! omg fugg uu!!!!!!!??!!!!!!!!!
>omg insurers dont want to cover ppl who will 100% get sick/are already sick??? what do you mean theyre not willing to be a charity and just voluntarily pay for someones bill ??? fugging ebil XDDD!!!!!!!!!!
grow the fuck up socialists
Don't get sick. If you get sick, die quickly. Welcome to the US of A.
Name 1 (one) country that got rich applying those ideas.
england, hong kong and the united states
>i should be able to steal from people so that i dont have to pay for medicine
the reason medication is so expensive is BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT
get rid of the FDA and allow competition between insurance companies and you'll get cheap medicine/insurance
>implying all socialists want bureaucracy.
The free market is just soft state socialism. You must reject plutocracy and bureaucracy.
Chile
>>omg why not just let the government run healthcare, thatll fixx all our problems!!!
It is demonstrated to be true, in the rest of the civilized world
>implying "the rest of the civilized world" isn't in decline
First, one of the reasons the US pays more for medical care is because we're subsidizing medical advancement in the rest of the civilized world. See pic related. We're the R&D center of the world. It's kind of like how we pay so much more for our military than European countries, because we're subsidizing their security.
Second, the rest of the civilized world isn't as flooded with third worlders as the US. Nationalized healthcare works in places where you have a homogenous population. In the US, white people pay the taxes to subsidize gov't gibmedats for blacks and latinos, who don't pay taxes, and the middle class gets fucked. This problem is coming soon to a European social democracy near you.
Third, despite being nationalized, many european healthcare systems actually do have a lighter regulatory load than the US.
>grow the fuck up socialists
Ok so why are you shilling for a hybrid private government program?
Ancap burger education, I see.
>In barely two years, from 1992 to 1994, the radical reforming Estonian government of Mart Laar was the first in Europe to introduce the flat tax, privatized most national industry in transparent public tenders, abolished tariffs and subsidies, stabilized the economy, balanced the budget, and perhaps most crucially, restored the prewar kroon and pegged it to the stable deutsche mark.
>Laar claims the only book on economics he had read before becoming prime minister at the age of 32 was Free to Choose by Milton Friedman
If you want to see how government run healthcare works in America, look no further than the VA hospitals you dumb mother fuckers. It is a fucking nightmare.
Here's a novel idea, buy health insurance or FUCK OFF AND DIE
>Country expects me to fight for it in the time of need regardless of my opinion
>Doesnt make any effort to keep me healthy or even make any effort to keep the drug affordable.
Either get rid of the drafting system or give us health care. I could careless which. Yes I know the drafting system is barely used but its there and can be.
>VA hospitals
Have you ever been to one outside you mom's house you dumb faggot?
Yes I have. Have you been living under a rock for the last four years you dumb faggot?
Wow, cool, you grew thanks to German subsidies and are completely dependant and dominated by German and Swedish companies in turn, who would've thought. They'll probably also fight for your prosperity tooth and nail if something goes wrong like in Greece.
Do you see that dive the economy took in the few years before Pinochet? That's Allende's socialization. Pinochect reversed the trend and put the country on a path to great prosperity than ever before.
Do you think you just proved a point against single payer healthcare? Because...you didn't.
No.
>England
False.
>Hong Kong
False.
>United States
False.
I'll say it again: name 1 (one) state that fully embraced these ideals (including freedom of trade) and improved it's position from shitty to good.
Historically speaking none of your examples were like that.
False. Chile really started to grow after Pinochet was deposed.
And even Pinochet didn't privatize copper mines and dropped some ideas of Chicago Boys rather quickly once it was apparent it doesn't work.
>most
That's not what I'm asking.
And don't get offended but I want real examples, like some countries with at least regional power and influence, who got rich applying these ideas.
People always use highly peculiar examples like Singapore (incredible geographic position), Hong Kong (outlet to PR China), Switzerland and so on.
When Russia attempted doing liberal shit in 90's it almost collapsed.
>b-but muh corruption
How is that different from communists blaming human nature?
People claim these ideas will work ANYWHERE. Not even Marx was that dumb to claim his ideas could be applied anywhere.
>if something goes wrong like in Greece.
haa
haha
HAHAHA
AHAHAHAHUEHUAHUEHUAHUE
>BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT
BUT TRUMPCARE ISN'T GOVERNMENT RIGHT?
>False. Chile really started to grow after Pinochet was deposed
Wrong, the trend starts shortly after he takes power and continues after he was deposed.
>Trend
>Posting data few comments before that.
>I don't no anything about economics or Chilie, but I'm ancap, so anything that is good is thanks to Pinochet and anything bad was caused by his enemies, even though good things happened when his enemies were in power and bad things happened when he was in power.
>continues
Did you see the graph this Russian posted?
In any case I'm not a socialist, I believe in capitalism, but not the capitalism you're selling.
Privatize everything and fuck the workers, fuck the regulations, that maybe works for USA but it doesn't work everywhere.
The only person on that list I have severe qualms about is Rothbard. Rothbard.... Rothschild.... too fucking close for comfort.
Learn to read graphs.
Helicopteristan had a bigger growth in it's GDP than the LatAm average during Pinochet's reign, according to that data.
Furthermore you people ignore history: no country consistently applied these ideas.
What counts as consistently in your eyes?
26 years not enough for you?
You dreaming of a world where one economic policy reigns rigidly throughout the centuries boy?
Are you retarded, or do they not teach about inflection points in slavigrad? The change in Chile's economic fortunes takes place during Pinochet's rule. There's no big change in the trendline between the last 5 years of Pinochet and his successors, IE the country continued on the path to greater prosperity. Allende's socialization was an obvious disaster.
No, I'm saying, find me a country that was poor at one point of history and then applied these ideas in full and got rich, while not having some peculiar geographic position, wealth in natural resources and so on.
I'm having issues with dogmatic nature of Austrian School and derivatives.
Like for example, look at US healthcare, it's objectively shit, they pay the most per capita yet they rank below 30, so what's bad in government stepping in?
Or consider non-economic factors. Without government intervention economic depression can have nasty (political) effects.
Or consider investment, investment also buys political power, that much is obvious. Notice how Russians use that as a weapon. Do you like it?
It's just another fairy-tale like communism. Real life demands a more pragmatic approach.
>while not having some peculiar geographic position, wealth in natural resources and so on.
Arse end of the Baltic sea.
No natural resources aside from hearthy mongol cum liberally spewed into the bellies of devutchkas.
Health care, whether socialized or privatized, is a topic that will not know a cease in complaints until the last man keels over.
>Or consider non-economic factors.
>Real life demands a more pragmatic approach.
Our approach is analogous to the RDFR - nationalism. No cooler approach to non-economic factors than "my tribe>yours."
None of those three countries got rich from just the free market. England and the US definitely had protectionism. Hong Kong probably did.
Source?
lol
That's a meme. Pinochet was a disaster in most respects. A few indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality improved because he continued the tradition of public spending in such interests.
>the US pays for everyone
Nice meme. Even fucking Cuba has made a lot of innovations.
Wrong.
Not exactly a high standard.
OP is probably a upper class white, huh?
Figures these are the only people spouting this kind of nonsense, they've got the cash to pay and don't have to worry about a god damn thing.
Guess you shouldn't be a loser then. Fag
The only relevant mantra to the economic landscape of the retarded brother of the Americas has been, and will be "still better than Africa."
>just don't be poor :^)
Yeah, fuck off.
It's the socialists that are upper class keyboard warriors here, while us blue collar workers are the diehard libertarians.
Fuck. I'd swear that socialist is a synonym for blind noble the world over and you're just a goy for these types.
>OMG just let the government give kickbacks to insurance companies!
>It's not like a single payer option would cost less than our current clusterfuck and actually save lives
Did it cost less and save more in the last seven years?
State capitalism is the superior model for developing economies.
Starve off already, commie Slav-e
The fuck nigger from Jamaica knows about economics? Only economy you have is growing papaya trees.