Yes! Scary Swedish Socialism!

23 April 2009 in america, politics, sweden

I can’t seem to make the embedding work, but if you didn’t see The Daily Show’s bit on Scary Swedish Socialism, click:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome

April 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

35 comments

23 April 2009 at 11:57 am

It’s only Americans who tend to hate Socialism. Sweden don’t mind it. We here in England don’t mind that our top rate of tax is now 50%.
America is an odd place.

30 April 2009 at 9:34 pm

libertydude

Yes, America is an odd place. It’s full of people that left your screwed up countries and governments for the opportunity to live in freedom and take care of ourselves. In doing so, we have created the greatest wealth and standard of living the world has ever known. I’m not rich by any stretch, but I work hard and I own a house much nicer than that singers apartment. I also own two cars and a yard. All without government assistance. This country was founded on individual liberty and property rights. It’s a shame so many here are willing to see that go away.

30 April 2009 at 10:18 pm

Ashley

Hi!
My name is Ashley and I have a couple of questions for you if it isn’t too much of a bother! If not, would you please email me?! Thanks so much!
Ashley

1 May 2009 at 1:49 am

megancase

Libertydude, all I can say is that I recommend that you visit some “screwed up” western European countries so that you might actually know what you are talking about.

1 May 2009 at 9:57 pm

libertydude

What makes you think I haven’t been to western Europe? I’ve been to London and Amsterdam several times and visited the US memorial at Normandy, France on one of those trips. I’ve also been to Prague, but that was shortly after the iron curtain fell. Beautiful cities. I wonder what part of America you’re from Megancase. I’m betting either east or west coast. My time spent in both those parts of our country, and Europe has left me scrambling for my home in one of the “flyover states”. I’ve also been to Japan, Hong Kong, and Madras, India. Besides, what did I say that makes you think I don’t think I know what I’m talking about? I admit I haven’t been to Sweden, but If you look past the shiny facade, you’ll see that the social problems from drug abuse, unwed pregnancies, and domestic violence are rampant, along with unemployment, etc… are much higher there than in th US, and are hidden from public view in government housing. Plus median incomes are lower than that of Americas lowest demographic- working class blacks. People don’t own things like housing and cars and property the way we do in America. Public housing and transportation are provided. It’s a system that nearly fell flat and was only saved by the reemergence of capitalism in the nineties. If you like it that way, more power to you, but I like the way I live here, and I haven’t seen a place yet that gives the individual the freedom over life liberty and property the way the US does…… or at least, used to.

4 May 2009 at 10:30 am

megancase

“My time spent in both those parts of our country, and Europe has left me scrambling for my home in one of the “flyover states”. ”

So you are comfortable in the place that you are from, which means that people in other places have a lower standard of living?

“I own a house much nicer than that singers apartment. I also own two cars and a yard.”

That singer lives in Stockholm, which is a big city. Some people choose to live in apartments in big cities rather than in suburbia because of the convenience and cultural benefits cities offer. I’ll bet that singer loves her apartment as much as you love your house.

Plenty of Swedes DO own houses with yards and two cars, which is unfortunate because that lifestyle is the worst possible one from an environmental perspective.

There’s more to quality of life than owning things. Having access to health care and education, and knowing that your neighbors do as well, and living a stress-free life that isn’t all about money is a part of quality of life too.

Having said that, Sweden is an incredibly rich country. There is no lack of consumer goods and buying power here. Western European socialism is not the Soviet Union. It is simply capitalism with higher taxes and high-quality government services. And it works quite well.

I’m not sure where you get your statistics about drug abuse, unwed pregnancies, and domestic violence from, but I’m pretty sure it’s not from Sweden.

Yes, I grew up on the east coast of the US, in a small city in a house with a big yard and two cars. And now I live in “public housing” in Sweden and I bike and take public transportation and I love it. I enjoy knowing that my carbon footprint is small, and I am glad to live in a society where everyone is educated and healthy.

4 May 2009 at 10:48 am

megancase

I should correct myself – I shouldn’t have lumped all of Western Europe together like that. Just looking at the places you’ve visited, Sweden is quite different from the UK when it comes to taxes and government services – there’s more of both here; and quite different from the Netherlands (and frankly, the whole rest of Europe) when it comes to drugs – drug laws are very strict here.

5 May 2009 at 8:04 pm

libertydude

There is definitely more to life than simply owning things. It’s called FREEDOM. Property rights are an intrinsic part of freedom. In a truly free society, the person is not accountable to the state, but the other way around. The purpose of the state is there to protect the individuals rights and liberties from those that would take them, be it other individuals in the state or foriegn threats, and not to take from the individual without due process. In a totalitarian state, the individual is completely accountable, or at the mercy of the state. The state has the power to take from the individual as it sees fit, whether it be life, liberty or property.

Sweden has a pretty dark past in regards to it’s record of forced sterilization of those deemed inferior, even forced lobotomies and some other pretty disturbing abuses that went on until as recently as the 1970’s. When it comes to taxes, it is simply government confiscation of property. If the tax liability for an individual is 50%, that means that person spends 50% of his or her time working for the state. It’s simply confiscation of property.

The Founders of America created a free society where the Individual was free to live as he saw fit, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. It is under that system that America has flourished and gone from a simple backwoods colony to the wealthiest nation in the world in just 200 and a few years.

It is the opportunity, and the risk afforded by freedom that has produced such a high standard of living. You say Sweden is a rich country, and it’s not bad by world standards, but keep in mind that it had a good start by not being involved in either of the world wars which were so economically devastating to the rest of Europe. It also has had the advantage of access to cheap energy and resources such as iron, and the close access to european markets. The capitalist nations soon over took it in terms of prosperity and by the 1970’s growth had slowed, inflation rose, state spending soared, and private sector jobs began to disappear. If Sweden were to be admitted as a state, it would be the poorest, based on figures from a 2002 Swedish Institute of Trade report.

Sweden turned to capitalism to save it’s self, and has become moderately tolerant of the entrepeneur- so long as they are not too successful. The state, which is now essentially a capitalist ruling class, still operates major industry.

In the United States we have the best health care in the world, and often our socialist friends to the north come here to pay for services that their health system refuses to provide in a timely fashion. Yes, I know accessibilty is sometimes a problem for the uninsured, mainly single twenty somethings (I know, I used to be one of them), but somehow, everyone seems to get taken care of.

We have some of the best education in the world, certainly at the college level, and the outcome from elementary through high school has suffered in correlation to involvement from the federal government. I’d compare that to Sweden where the cost to student ratio is about $7,000 a year per year and lackluster scores on international comparative tests.

The Swedish government uses a lot of accounting tricks to disguise actual unemployment numbers, by listing them as “on paid leave”, or “student”, by giving them some menial class to attend. Swedens official numbers do not reflect the actual numbers of working people vs the people being supported by the working. Unwed pregnancy rates are at 54%, and alchoholism, drugs and violence, I should note, are actually more analagous to other regions of the latitude, such as Alaska, but then again Alaska has a large native population, who unfortunately, are historically quite prone to those problems.

However, the socialist state does little to discourage that type of behavior and it becomes a drag on the entire system. It also creates a dependency of the individual on the state and thus gives the state power over the individual. Freedom and Liberty are the ability to rely on oneself, and not be dependent. Freedom and Liberty are so precious and rare throughout the entire history of the world, it should not be so easily given away by those who have it. Americans who watch Jon Stewart should be aware of the cost of socialism.

I also don’t want to sweep environmental concerns under the rug, we all want clean air, water and a healthy environment. The problem is that there is an eco-facsist movement that ignores much of the science and creates a hysteria that is propogated by politicians and corporate interests alike. General Electric uses it’s massive media outlet to promote candidates and draw attention to issues it seeks to profit from. I’m talking about the carbon emmisions tax that GE will stand to make a killing on by being able to sell its “green” shares from wind energy production to industry that exceeds their emissions quotas. There is a lot of bad and incomplete science, along with misinformation out there regarding mans actual impact on global warming. The natural cycle of the sun has way more effect than man could hope to. One example I will give is in regards to the amount of coverage regarding the melting of the ice shelf on Antarticas Western coast, but virtually no coverage of the fact that on Antarticas Eastern side, recent measurements report the thickest ice ever recorded.

Still, I applaud the efforts of anyone who freely does things to reduce pollution and be a responsible steward of the earth. It’s not practical for everyone to take public transportation and drive tiny vehicles, and that is something I’m afraid Europeans, East and some West coast Americans don’t understand.

In a free society, we do what we believe to be right because it makes us better people.
-anonymous

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
-George Bernard Shaw- Irish Dramatist & Socialist

5 May 2009 at 8:14 pm

libertydude

On another note- those guys from the Pirate Bay are in jail because they did not respect property rights in the way of international copyright law, and were fairly obnoxious about it as well. Someones intellectual property is as much theirs as a piece of land, money or anything else. I think it speaks volumes about a society that has created a culture that so vagrantly dismisses the individuals right to their own property.

5 May 2009 at 10:37 pm

megancase

I can see there’s no point in having a discussion with you when you don’t have the foggiest idea about what life is really like in Sweden. Don’t get me started on the American health care system. And if you want to talk about countries with a dark and disturbing past, take a breather from your hollow rhetoric about “freedom” and “liberty” and look in your own backyard.

6 May 2009 at 8:43 am

libertydude

I’m sure that Swedes are quite content with their country. Brits love the UK, and the Dutch like Holland. This all started because someone in the UK didn’t understand why we in the U.S. don’t care for forking over a third or more of our income to the government. Come to think of it, that’s kind of why the American colonies revolted in the first place. Fact is, the United States is mainly populated by the descendants of people who found their home countries intolerable, were often oppressed, and came here for the equal opportunity America offered, equal results have never been promised. And Americans have prospered. To those immigrants, their countries were quite “screwed up”, and the terrible tragedy of it all is, that the United States over the past century has allowed itself to become the very thing people were trying to get away from. Freedom and Liberty are not hollow rhetoric but the very thing that America needs to grab hold of again.

7 May 2009 at 7:20 am

don

But Libertydude, your arguments for US prosperity are somewhat simplistic to say the very least. The divide between the haves and have nots are greater now in the states than they have been in years and years. Companies and truly wealthy people are moving their wealth to places where they can’t be taxed.

Recently, New York County district attorney Robert Morgenthau said in an interview that he considered this tax evasion one of the biggest problems our democracy faces. From what Morgenthau said, (and I don’t think there is any question about it) all major banks, insurance companies and other players were envolved. You name them. It is no wonder we find ourselves in the economic crisis we are in now.

At some point we have to realize that we are all in this together. When you talk about why American colonies were revolting in the first place, it was against a ruling class dominating a working class and that’s pretty much what we are seeing now in the states.

The biggest misconception people have now is that they think they are in a higher economic class than they really are. I think it stems on people wanting to think they are better than others. The repulbican party has done a good job of exploiting this notion and has convinced people to vote against their best interest on the basis of religion and other “conservative”
issues. If you were truly wealthy you wouldn’t bother to comment here. You aren’t passing the smell test in this respect.

But the “fact is” Libertydude, that people are starting to figure it out. The gig is up. The economy has imploded and perhaps this greed mentality just might have become a thing of the past.

It wasn’t moral anyway. Take solace in that.

7 May 2009 at 3:07 pm

Mari

Wow, what great discussion you’re having here. I’d just like to peep in and say I thought the clip was fantastically funny. That’s all. And that maybe Jon Stewart will take Sweden as his pet country like Conan took Finland.
Sorry for the distraction.

;)

7 May 2009 at 6:22 pm

libertydude

Don, Americans have some of the has per capita incomes in the world, only being beaten out by by tiny little countries and… well… oil rich Norway. It’s true the divide is greater than ever. It’s because people are getting wealthier. I’ve heard the argument the middle class is disappearing, but the fact is, the middle class is becoming wealthier. The poorest in America still live like kings in comparison most of the world. Immigrants still come here in droves not to suck off our entitlement system, as some would have you believe, but for the opportunity our Freedom offers.

As far as the wealthy moving money to where it can’t be taxed, wouldn’t it be nice if they were able to keep that money here and put it back into our economy. When Reagan cut taxes, revenues actually went up because it stimulated economic activity. Instead of hiding money in tax shelters, they reinvested it.

What got us into this economic crisis was actually the government getting into the free market system. I suggest every American, (or Swede:) read a 1999 New York Times article by Steven A. Holmes titled Fannie Mae Credit to Aid in Mortgage Lending. Google it. It was a warning and a virtual blueprint for the current economic crisis. The government changed the rules on who could get credit, distorted the market, created a bubble in real estate, and Wall Street kept acting as if they were in a normal free market system. Free market capitalism is the only thing that can save our economy, not this ridiculous spending to prop up failed companies.

It’s both political parties to blame, and at least, the Democrats are honest about their progressive-socialist agenda. The Republicans talk smaller government, but then we get the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Fact is, both political parties have moved us to a larger and more powerful central government in the U.S. People are leaving BOTH parties in equal numbers

The American revolution wasn’t about working class against ruling class. It was organized by wealthy land owners fed up with the Tyranny from England. Guys like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were all quite successful before the revolution, as were most of the Founders. They created a society in which anyone (yeah, I know, it took awhile to actually include everyone) had the opportunity to create their retain their wealth, and it’s created some of the wealthiest private citizens in the world.

As I stated before, I’m not wealthy by any stretch, I actually lost my job when my employer went out of business in October (when this economic thing hit the fan), but I’ve been self employed ever since and have been scraping by just fine. It’s actually been the most empowering and satisfying experience of my life.

I also think the gig is up and people are finally waking up to the fact that the agenda of politicians -both Democrat and Republican- in Washington is to acquire and consolidate power by making you believe you actually need them. You don’t

Oh yes, Jon Stewart is a very funny fellow, and the video is hilarious:)!

8 May 2009 at 7:12 am

don

LD, It took a long time indeed for everyone to have the opportunity to create their own wealth. The original sub prime loans were those in non-white parts of town. That was exactly how they were defined and lines were drawn. Something needed to be done in the form of fair housing to keep black people from being forever subservient to land lords. Of course sub par loans came with higher interest rates to those who could least afford it.

That’s different than the recent sub prime mess which is nothing more than lack of regulation and people with where with all taking advantage of it. I think what we are seeing now is the ugly face of Reagonomics, the part reducing government regulation of the economy.

I keep hearing republicans say it was both parties that got us into this mess. I wish they would just take ownership for the last eight years. But the republicans are margialized now so I guess it doesn’t really matter.

Lastly, I’m not sure it’s such a great source of pride to have a few very wealthy people, while most americans can’t afford health insurance. You end up with people like Leona Helmsley who left $12m to her lap dog and was quoted as saying “we don’t pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes.”

Now that’s what I call republican honesty.

8 May 2009 at 9:43 am

libertydude

Leona Hemsley? Wow, that goes back a little ways. Bill and Melinda Gates gave $27,976,000,000 (that’s billion) to charity in 2004. Gordon and Betty Moore (Intel co-founder) gave $7,300,000,000 or 192% of their remaining net worth. Warren Buffet- $2,721,000,000. George Soros(and I really don’t like this guy) gave $5,171,000,000, etc… Being rich doesn’t necessarily make you greedy or evil, or cause harm to those who aren’t rich.

How many socialist politicians have done REAL harm in the world? Should I really start listing them? Okay, here we go- Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong Il, Menghitsu Haile Mariaim, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussien, Hu Jintao, Hugo Chavez… and these guys all seemed like they were going to be so great when they came to power and really help the little guy and solve all sorts of problems.

Stop the class warfare banter. Rich vs. poor, black vs. white. A truly free and liberal society doesn’t divide people up into into social-economic
groups and treat them differently. Every individual should be treated equally under the eyes of the law, regardless of race, class, or creed. It’s not about Democrat vs Republican, last time I’ll say it. It’s about individual Freedom and Liberty vs. the Tyranny of the state and control over the individual.

Oh, and depending on which figures you look at, 14-18% of Americans don’t have health insurance. Mostly singles in their twenties. That’s a far cry from saying most can’t afford it.

If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free!

8 May 2009 at 4:00 pm

kostia

“A truly free and liberal society doesn’t divide people up into into social-economic
groups and treat them differently.”

Yeah, you’re right, LD. “Society” doesn’t do that. Given what you keep referring to as “true liberty and freedom”, people are quite happy to divide themselves up into socio-economic groups without any help from “society” or the state.

The idea that unfettered capitalism can somehow create a classless society should probably be called the Great American Delusion. I’m not sure if it’s any less ridiculous than the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which a huge chunk of the truly free American population also subscribe to.

8 May 2009 at 5:42 pm

libertydude

Well, I believe people can believe any silly notion they want, so long as their actions don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. The goal is one where the state views everyone equally and doesn’t give certain people special favor or harsher treatment based on their demographics. It shouldn’t say, “Hey, you white guys can’t get the job even though you scored higher on the tests because we want some diversity so we’re going to give it to this black guy even though his scores weren’t adequate”, and likewise, it doesn’t say, “Yeah, I know we just sent a white guy to prison for three months for selling dope but you’re black, , and you guys seem to really have a problem with it, so you’re going away for 3 years.”

And the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, humans about 200,000 years. But that’s just my conclusion based on the latest scientific evidence. People are always free to ignore facts and believe in the most absurd things that they want, I mean…listen to you all! ;)

8 May 2009 at 11:02 pm

don

LD, I didn’t say most people didn’t have insurance, I said most people can’t afford it. I couldn’t afford it if it weren’t bestowed on me by my employer who is under no obligation to do so. Every year our agent shows up to raise our rates and we have a meeting to decide what coverage we can do without. I’d never reach the deductible at this point unless it was a last ditch effort to save my life, and it would be too late then anyway, not to mention there would only be enough funds to try and save me once. If they did manage to save me I’d be uninsurable after that.

I could tell you story after story. But here’s one. A guy I know has a good job working for the railroad. A very good job for where they live. He is covered and they pay to cover their two kids but his wife goes without. Perhaps she’s the 18% you are taking about. I’d say it’s more like 25% in their case.

9 May 2009 at 7:29 am

libertydude

Oh, I just couldn’t resist…

Your Worst Nightmare- Libertarian Health Care?
by Richard C.B. Johnsson

When thinking about or discussing what a libertarian society would possibly look like, I often encounter assertions like: “nobody would take care of the poor.” Once, at an academic seminar, I put forward some crazy ideas about the financing of roads.1 My ideas were met by a more or less unanimous outrage from the other attendants. After having made the correct generalizations, they couldn’t refrain themselves from asking me what would happen if a poor fellow without insurance became critically ill in a society where everything was private?2 The suggested answer was, of course, that in such a libertarian society, the poor fellow would have to suffer and even perish, as any hospital clearly would refuse to treat him.

Appalled they were, but in courtesy towards these critics, I now put forward four even better fictive examples of this kind of nightmarish libertarian society. The examples are indeed scary and hopefully these critics now can sleep well at night, knowing that nobody ever possibly could argue in favor of a system that produces the atrocities of the following examples:

1. A man got his leg amputated because a hospital failed to treat him in time. The man, who suffered from diabetes, received no treatment despite the obvious risk of gangrene that followed from his poor blood circulation. The subsequent investigation, set up by the hospital’s owner, put out a warning to the two doctors involved, stating that the man would still have his leg had he been treated in time.

Comment: Here we see how in the libertarian society a hospital can cut off somebody’s leg and the only thing that happens is that the owners blame the workers!

2. A hospital has on its own account investigated into the possibilities of premature deaths among patients waiting in line for a by-pass surgery. For those that aren’t lucky enough to end up in what the hospital determines to be the “fast lane,” the waiting time is about 4½ months. It was found that during the 4 years of 1995–1998, 77 patients died while waiting in line. The conclusion of the study was that perhaps the hospital needs to coordinate its activity on a national level with other hospitals of the same ownership. In that way, they would be able to better judge who were going to end up in the fast lane (and, thus, who wouldn’t).

Comment: Here we see how hospitals in the libertarian society would refuse to treat people, putting some people with connections in front of others, letting the little guy vanish. What would happen if somebody died, like the 77 in the example? The hospital would say that they would look into their routines, that is all!

3. After having had to wait for a long time, a man was told by a hospital that he had cancer and that the tumor was malignant. It could neither be treated by surgery nor in any other way. – This tumor will kill you, he was told. He was offered the necessary pain relief. Fortunately, the man was very wealthy. He just got on a plane and flew to a place where these kinds of tumors could be treated. He had surgery in a couple of days, and instead of the prospect of death after only 45 days in the care of the first hospital, he now can look forward to many more years of living.

Comment: Here is a good example of how the heartless hospitals in the libertarian society would give people an aspirin instead of curing the cancer, although it obviously was curable!

4. When it was time to give the twin birth, a pregnant woman and her husband, living in a small town, were told that there were no beds available at the hospital. This particular hospital was in the neighboring town, since they had already earlier been refused to give birth in their hometown. However, the hospital had made a general promise that they should be able to give birth somewhere. They were taken to the famous hospital in a larger city about 150 km away, but also there they were refused to give birth, despite the fact that it had the same owner. Instead the hospital sent them abroad by helicopter to another hospital with a different owner, but with which the first hospital had some kind of agreement. When they finally arrived, it turned out that the twins were stillborn.

After this tragic event, the hospital refused to fly the couple back to their home country or hometown. The hospital only arranged for helicopter in emergencies, and when the necessary care in relation to a child’s birth is finished, the hospital has no obligations, they where told. Instead, the unfortunate couple had to arrange with flight tickets back home. Normally, deceased persons are generally transported in a sealed zinc coffin in the trunk of the airplane, but as the couple didn’t want it that way, they instead were provided a small coffin that was put in a bag. The airline company, that happened to be the property of the owner of that foreign hospital, acted courteously and left two rows clear in front of the grieving couple. Well back home, the hearse the hospital had promised didn’t arrive, so the couple had to take a taxi to get all the way home.

The subsequent investigation, set up by the hospital’s owner, reached the conclusions that the behavior of the hospitals, from a medical point of view, had been correct. In retrospect, the investigation could also conclude that the quality of the reception when the couple arrived back home with the flight could have been better. Another conclusion was that the outcome of the birth itself wasn’t affected by the fact that the couple had been sent to a hospital in another country, but that this admittedly must have been strenuous for them. Finally, the investigation stated that the hospital had to find new routines for how to handle complicated international flights in general.

Comment: Here is the perhaps best case of how nightmarish hospitals in the libertarian society would act, while all that would happen is that they say that everything was done in a correct manner, save some minor routines that have to be checked!

These examples clearly outline how heartless and terrifying the health care system would be in a libertarian society. I hope the critics will remember these examples the next time we meet.

Now to the real nightmare – these stories are true. They all happened in Sweden in the last couple of years.3

But hold on, Sweden is not an example of a libertarian society, is it? No, Sweden is rather known for its fabulous middle-of-the-road politics, as the Welfare State par excellance, the place on earth that is so equal and great for the poor. And where health care is free of charge. Still, it is a fact that these examples occurred in Sweden, where the government finances, owns, regulates and runs everything related to health care.4 And still, the stories are indeed nightmarish.

Let’s study the government involvement a bit closer. In the first story, one branch of the government cuts of a man’s leg, while another states that its employees were to blame. In the second story, we see a clear example of how terribly chaotic government bureaucracy is, with price fixing (at zero) creating long waiting lines and how the survival of a particular patient finally depends on the ability to get ahead of others in a true Darwinist race against death, man against man. In the third story, a man was told that he was going to die and was offered pain relief. Because he was wealthy, he could fly to somewhat less statist Germany to get treatment within days. Finally, the forth story is so sad that I don’t know what to write (I found it especially hard also because I myself have had some kids in the last couple of years).

It is amazing how these kinds of stories can exist while people all the time are complaining about the threat of the free market, and while they continue to cherish the government. For some reasons, people apply one standard to the activities of the government, and another to the private activities. Because if it really were fully private hospitals that produced these atrocities, most people would clearly and rightfully be outraged. The hospitals would go bankrupt within days or at least lose plenty of customers and employees. The only way they could continue to exist would be if they have some kind of legal monopoly, i.e. if the government in some way was involved. But such a thing wouldn’t exist in a libertarian society, would it?

The Bogeyman of the nightmares is already here and it’s called the government. Now we know where those critics got their nightmares from – from the real life result of their own ideas. It is time to stop feeding this real life monster, to get rid of it! One of these days, it could be you who wake up without a leg, die in a line, are offered pain relief against cancer, or worse. And as I said, I hope those critics remember these stories. One would at least hope for that kind of honesty.

I couldn’t have put it better myself- LD :)

9 May 2009 at 7:35 am

libertydude

Those annoying numbers in the text refer to these footnotes:

Notes

1. I told them that if one doesn’t charge the users of the roads, this amounts to consumption of wealth, as opposed to investment and production of wealth.
2. I actually didn’t say that this suggested that roads should be private – I’m not that stupid – but they easily saw the possible implications themselves. I don’t mean stupid in the sense that I don’t advocate private roads elsewhere, only that I wasn’t stupid enough to say that to the people that were deciding whether I was going to get my government Ph.D. degree or not. The opponent, now the principal of the most famous university in Sweden, could not stop himself from referring to me as some kind of Milton Friedman. Now there’s a person they also seem to have nightmares about. Very amusing!
3. The stories all appeared in major Swedish newspapers and I’ve kept them on file. Sources: 1. SvD March 7, 2002: “Ben amputerades efter läkarmiss.” 2. DN November 29, 2001: “77 avled i operationskö.” 3. October 5, 2002: “Den tumören kommer att taga död på dig.” 4. November 22, 2002: “Inget fel i samband med tvillingars död” and Aftonbladet August 9, 2002: “De flögs hem i en vit kista.”
4. Save for a few places that are run by private entrepreneurs in a typical corporativist manner – these were not the subject of the stories, though.

9 May 2009 at 10:26 am

megancase

I would be more interested in statistical, rather than anecdotal, evidence about health care systems. I have no doubt that one could find thousands of similar horror stories in the US about how private insurers refused to pay for people’s care. You can’t just say “five bad things happened in Sweden and therefore their health care system sucks”.

This “government is always bad” argument lacks any kind of criticial thought. There is good governance and bad governance. Sweden scored the highest on The Economist’s Index of Democracy 2008 (the US scored 18th), and The Economist is no socialist rag. http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf

Having government instead of private insurers administer health care is not inherently better or worse, but I frankly I would trust the motivations of a democratically-elected government more than an unaccountable organization with a primary goal of earning a profit.

9 May 2009 at 10:29 am

megancase

Oh, while we’re at it, let’s have a look at the 2008 Human Development Index. Sweden is only 7th. But the US is 15th. So much for being best in the world at everything.

Click to access HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf

9 May 2009 at 8:18 pm

don

Tuesday, at a round table hearing, Sen. Baccus from my home state of Montana, stated that in 2007 1 out of 3 people went without medical insurance at some point and people who were insured were often under-insured. Baccus was heckled by several in the audience for ruling out single payer.

It was also stated by a member of the board, that people have lost faith that their insurance company represents their best interest. I thought that was an understatement.

Anyway, good luck making your COBRA payments while out of work LD. At least now there is a premium reduction you might qualify for.

10 May 2009 at 5:15 am

libertydude

Megancase-
That’s not fair – we have California!

But seriously, thanks for the links, now we’re getting somewhere. I’ve never heard of the Human Development Index before and I’m going to look it over.

Don-
I think it’s pretty safe to say that there is no perfect health care system (although I do hear Cuba has a pretty nice one), but megancase is right and we need some statistical rather than anecdotal evidence. You and I could go back and forth endlessly with the problems in both systems. I really do fear that a national health system for the U.S would be a disaster. I think if anything it should be up to the States to deal with such issues, which would at least provide a little competition amongst them and to come up with plans better tailored to each state.

I would like to let you all know that I’ve really been enjoying our little debate and I hope that you all can understand that it’s not my intent to insult or offend anyone. I didn’t expected this to keep going like this, and I thank you all for the discussion. I’ll be back in a couple of days after I do some research. Thank you all.

and finally,

USA rules!

10 May 2009 at 7:29 am

don

Well you’re right LD, nothing is perfect, but there are some things that are just plain wrong. That isn’t always quantifiable, but go on and do your research, there’s still hope for you. If you’re going to get sick, just do it before your insurance runs out.

10 May 2009 at 9:43 am

libertydude

My wife’s insurance covers the whole family- Blue Cross/Blue Shield, so no worries. Are you really from Montana Don? That’s a pretty hard core “red state” isn’t it? I happen to be in the swing state of Iowa, where any Presidential wannabe must show up in august a full year before the party conventions and eat a corn dog and view the cow carved from butter at the state fair. Great fun.

State motto:
“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”

11 May 2009 at 1:43 am

don

Montana has its share of rednecks no doubt but I’m not sure that qualifies it as a red state. The governor, Brian Schweitzer is a Democrat as are senators Jon Tester and Max Baccus.

The Obamas spent a lot of time campaigning in Montana as did the Clintons, but if I remember, I don’t think McCain bothered to come to Montana. He might have made a touch and go once in Billings. I can’t remember if Palin did, I want to say she did. Although McCain carried the state, it was close and I think his absence was somewhat telling about his campaign. On the other hand I think it also said a lot about Obama’s willingness to reach out to people.

11 May 2009 at 7:21 am

libertydude

I contend the whole reason McCain lost is because he never showed up for the corn dog and went straight to New Hampshire instead. In any event, I had you figured for coming from “middle” America somewhere.

11 May 2009 at 7:31 am

libertydude

New Hampshire state motto:

“Live free or die!”

13 May 2009 at 8:47 am

libertydude

According to the WHO in overall health system attainment and performance, Sweden ranks 23th, and the U.S. ranks 37th. But we all expected something like that, I think. If you start dissecting the numbers it tells a somewhat different story. For level of responsiveness, the U.S is #1. Sweden comes in 10th. Both countries tie at 3rd for distribution, or the physical access to medical facilities and treatment.

Where the numbers skew is in what the WHO refers to as financial fairness, and other areas not necessarily referring which is a measure of the inequality in the percentage households pay for health care relative to their income. Sweden comes in 12th and the U.S. is 54th. The FF factor doesn’t just penalize a country because some households are especially likely to become impoverished from health costs; it also penalizes a country because some households are especially unlikely to become impoverished from health costs.

Here’s a link to an article from the CATO institute… which is a libertarian think tank.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

Another problem is what the U.S. spends comparative to other nations. Americans do get some extravagant procedures with high costs and low benefit. Also, the medical, insurance, and pharmaceutical lobbies that drive for government regulations that serve their interests. This gets back to my argument for a limited government that doesn’t interject itself in the markets.

Why is it illegal for us as Americans to buy pharmaceuticals at the lower “group” rates that foreign (or semi-foreign) countries like Canada buy at? If anything, the companies should get market price everywhere and there should be an export tariff on products developed and produced here. It would help to lower the price for Americans, and money from tariffs could potentially be used to help stave off costs for the poor.

13 May 2009 at 8:48 am

libertydude

I had some weird grammatical nonsense in the second paragraph but I hope you get the jist.

13 May 2009 at 9:46 pm

libertydude

As far as the Democracy index- looks like Sweden rightfully wins out. I can’t argue much with the results. Sweden is certainly better on civil liberties, however property rights aren’t included in that. Sweden has better participation, the functioning of government I’ll assume is better. It’s funny how people like government, as long as the “right” people are in office.

Note the Democrats view on big government in this survey: (ok, both parties are actually relevant)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117739/Big-Gov-Viewed-Greater-Threat-Big-Business.aspx

Of course, the perceived threat of big government is overwhelming across the board.

Electoral process and pluralism is also a problem but varies from state to state. It’s really frustrating for me in Iowa to watch all the problems in Florida and other areas of the country because we don’t have those problems where I live. I’ve lived and voted in both urban and rural areas of the state and have never had to wait in line more than five minutes, and the ballot is read by an optical scanner which is extremely reliable, and will reject it immediately if it can’t be read, allowing the voter to correct it. Why can’t the rest of the country figure this out?

But if you think that I’m trying to say the current state of U.S. politics and government is the best in the world, I haven’t been getting my point across. My problem is precisely with the current state of things and where I see this country going.

Democracy is a word thrown around alot, but it is little more than mob rule. That is why individual rights and liberties are so important. It is there to protect the individual from a government abusing the “for the common good” argument.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. It’s government is comprised of democratically elected representatives and is bound by a constitution that provides for checks and balances and limits on power. In today’s government, the Constitution is often ignored or seen as an obstacle to political expediancy.

13 May 2009 at 10:31 pm

libertydude

On the human development index, I haven’t really looked into it yet but I do see on the rankings that Sweden beats out the U.S. by 8/1000’s of a point and had only surpassed the U.S. in 1995, after Sweden allowed itself to turn to more capitalism in the early 1990’s. But look out! The U.S has shown short term progress of .007 vs. Sweden’s .006 from 2000-2006. But in all fairness, those numbers are both some of the worst on the list.

27 May 2009 at 2:15 am

Swedish social democrat

Libertydude – You say that the US is the wealthiest country in the world. To be honest, I’m not sure about that. I don’t know where you got those statistics from. There are many different ways of counting the wealth of a nation. It’s definitely one of the absolute most economically wealthy countries in the world. I’ll give you that.

But even so, the wealth is horrifyingly unevenly spread. As of 2005, the richest 1% held 38% of the wealth [1] and according to a study done in 2002 the average American chief executive earned 475 times more the average manufacturing employee. In Sweden, however, the average chief executive earned only 13 times more than the average manufacturing employee, according to the same study [2]. It’s also worth noting that 1 out of 5 Americans live in poverty [3], that’s 20%.

As for your comments about the American health care system, I have to say it seems that you don’t know how big of a problem the inaccessibility to health care is in the US. If you think that it’s a problem mostly for “single 20-somethings” and that “it seems like everyone is somehow taken care of” you’re either closing your eyes to the scale of the problem or you’re simply misinformed.

As of 2005, 45 million Americans had no health insurance [4]. Which again proves my point that the US is country with frighteningly huge differences between the rich and the poor. Sure, you might have some of the most advanced medical competence but who can access it and benefit from it?

It’s funny that you try to make the democracy index seem illegitimate because “property rights are not included in that [civli liberties]”. Maybe it isn’t but do you know if property rights are included in the qualifications of democracy in the democracy index? Maybe it is. Besides, what is more important? Civil liberties or property rights? Sure, the US is a nice place to be rich but have you tried the other side? If not, then you’re very lucky.

There is no perfect society but the Swedish one is definitely better than the American one, as I see it and I think I explained why with this comment. If you disagree with me (who am I kidding, I know you do) please explain why and come with some good counter arguments, and please write your sources, and use real sources, for god’s sake…

Source:

[1], [2], [3], [4] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726

	looby on “To us the whole world i…
	megancase on “To us the whole world i…
	Jennifer on “To us the whole world i…
	dedegor on 2011-07-31
	looby on 2011-07-31

Yes! Scary Swedish Socialism!

About This Blog

Recent Comments

Some Bloggers I Know

Some Organizations I Support

Archives

Blog Stats

Pages

Meta

35 comments

Yes! Scary Swedish Socialism!

Share this:

Related

About This Blog

Recent Comments

Some Bloggers I Know

Some Organizations I Support

Archives

Blog Stats

Pages

Meta

35 comments