Health Care and the Candidates

[RubySlippers]

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/60minutes/main3889496.shtml

I just want to know how each candidate will fix this problem?

[National Acrobat]

They won't. They can suggest things, or come up with a grand proposal, but ultimately it will be up to Congress to actually pass legislation dealing with Healthcare, which is why several states, such as Massachusetts have gone ahead and done their own thing, because Congress will never get around to making something that everyone can agree on. The President can use his office as a bully pulpit or he can veto legislation he doesn't approve of, but basically it will come down to Congress. With that in mind, a deal will have to be struck that is balanced. Without votes, you don't get a bill passed.

[Elvi]

Why would you want them to fix this problem Ruby?
This is what your Capitalist Eutopian society would do.
Keep the rich healthy and happy, use the poor and disguard them when they are of no further use.
After all, there are plenty more where they came from...

[Hunter]

As one of the uninsured I find your remark to be both offensive and insensitive, Elvi.  Yes, I have to choose between eating and having medical care.  Which is why my health is borderline and even then I barely scrape by.  Quit being such a troll.

[Elvi]

My remark was not directed at either yourself or any others who are unable to pay for medicines Hunter.
I actually think that it is a disgusting state of affairs when the very people of a country have to recieve health 'donations', from the people who should have been able to treat them freely in the first place.
I find it a horrific state of affairs, when people are suffering for the lack of being able to afford treatment for even the most miner of ailments, in a country that is lauded, (by some), as the greatest upon this earth.

The remark was actually directed at (and addressed to, you may notice), Ruby herself, who has said on many occasions that it doesn't matter about poverty either in her own country or any other for that matter, as long as America is 'great'.

If you wish me to find quotes from the many threaqds she has said this in, then I will do so.
(I believe the last time she referred to capitalism, being the great American way, was in the thread about Microsoft?)

[kongming]

When I found out about America's medical system, I was actually horrified. I seriously couldn't imagine such a system outside a third world country.

Here in Australia, if you exist and are an Australian citizen, you have a medicare card + number. It's sort of like social security, you just have the number, it identifies you, and you can't elect to not have one. This is just used for medical situations.

To see a doctor, some require you to pay the full fee (and you can then get medicare to reimburse you), and others send the fee straight to medicare, and you don't have to pay a cent. Because not dying is sort of a right, besides, the last thing they want is for people to not see doctors, then spread diseases around. Now, to see a specialist, you generally have to pay for that yourself, or get (cheap) private health insurance which will at least cover part of it. For instance, a psychologist or psychiatrist could cost you around $150 per appointment, but simple health cover can reduce that to less than half. Or you can get another government branch to cover the entirety of it, in some cases.

Now, for prescription medication, as long as you have a medicare card, the most it can possibly cost you is $31.30 - the government pays the rest. Now, if you are on low income, that changes, and the most you can spend is a mere $5. That's right, my monthly prescription for antidepressants is just a fiver.

I hear it's even better in Europe. But seriously, I can't imagine living in a country that didn't offer these benefits or similar ones. It sounds like the basic right of the people, and if America does ever adopt a system like this, it will be a big benefit for the people, and a good sign for the country.

[RubySlippers]

Ok since this verging on a personal attack on myself and my views I just wanted to point out I want to see what the candidates intend to offer this sort of group not that I necessarily agree with socialized as opposed to private medical care.

Frankly I'm opposed to any Federal solution when states and counties have the clear Constitutional obligation to provide for such care as also overseeing education is not a Federal matter or maintaining a standing army.

I'm not opposed to government run programs quite the opposite as long as the Federal Government stays out of it I feel states and if they won't counties should provide such a system. At least through public hospitals and clinics much like existed in the early twentieth century before and just around WWII. Many states for example to hold a medical license in fact most required community service hours to practice medicine in their specialty. For example my grandfather a surgeon in New York State Had To work at a community run or charity hospital for 10 hours a month or two surgeries whichever was greater. The only exception was to that those doctors in employ to such a facility full time. I see no problem with that they have the privilege of practicing medicine in the state and country for that there is a requirement of service hours.

In this case if the areas these people lived in had public community hospitals funded by the states and counties they may have the care they need and this charity shows its hardly expensive to provide it at a certain level of care.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I am not so sure ruling out a Federal health care system.  An the dreaded 'S' word of socialism for the Health care system.   For leaving it to the states can have an adverse affect overall.  For example,  state A initiates a comprehensive affordable health care that provides.  A state that has a good strong economy base.  Then you have State B, not so good.  But there looking out for the poor and disable.  But the middle class is fitting the bill.  But their neighbors in state A got a great deal going.   An well a wife in state b gets cancer.  An in their own state they cannot afford.  So they move to state A, where l they would be covered.  But this begins to add up.  State A's strong economic base is crumbling now under the weight.     That is one example.  It is happening now, people moving to states that they can get better help.     Then some states cannot even afford to enact a health care system, let alone individual counties.    Especially since most of the states infrastructures are 30 years over due in being redone.  So then do you put it in the hands of the private sector.  Well that is truly where it has been.  Since we had no health care system in place other then the joke that is medicare.   An well were at 47 million uninsured.

[RubySlippers]

Its simple principle States are more agile and know their local needs better than the Federal Government and the counties and cities/towns even more so. And who said this has to be government run Florida's governor has a plan to work with insurers to allow parts of policies not needed to be removed for reduced rates. Example a single man doesn't need obstetrics and gynecological services so they wouldn't have to be covered. And to come up with insurance plans that are less frill oriented to maybe get policies more people could afford.

Not perfect but Massachusetts set up a state level plan didn't they?

No solution is perfect we have a huge country and Libertarians feels generally the Federal Government is at best able to deal with matters that must be done at that level. Signing treaties, protecting the nation with  a military big enough to defend us and regulating trade minimally and with the least direct interference by the Federal Government. That would leave far more money from slashed taxes to pay for these other programs at the State and local levels.

On the main arguement is who is best able to efficiently provide a program I argue bottom up and your arguing top down use of force. Thats what a Federal and State government is who can use its force it ability to enforce its will on a citizen. A right only one group in the US has other than that is a criminal armed with a gun. If we must have a government and even Libertarians are not generally anarchists then we say keep the power as close to the voters level as possible.

But really how much would a health care system cost if there was a payroll tax for it, take money already there such as that spent by companies to provide health care and medicaid plus that spent on charity care by counties. We set up a program lets say at the county level in Florida with state assistance from perhaps a 1 cent sales tax increase and set up a good county health care complex with funds to primary care doctors on a list to give some choice. Florida could likely do a nice safety net plan. In fact my grandfather ran a public hospital it had group wards for non-infectious patients with sixteen beds to a room, competant doctors that were public employees and charity care hours used by them to get the specialists needed, a dental care section and worked with private primary care providers in the town. And patient paid on their ability to pay. Most chairty hospitals were just the same just paid for and run by religious orders or religious groups also never turned poor people away and were rather common in large cities.

I do blame the Federal Government thanks to their meddling in setting up Medicare and Medicaid and frankly sticking their hands into the free market of medicine it killed these fine institutions that offered the care people needed. Its there money and the WWII forcing down of wages but encouranging company based health care that allowed medical providers to drive up prices since they could. The natural cost containment of a county or state having so much money to fund state community care and the patients expected to pay something if they could for their care drove up the costs. The Federal Government made medicine a business not the free market as long as everyone had to pay into it and the voters could vote for their officals locally who controlled the health care dollars there was a natural cost containment. If the hospital charged more than people would ask do we need this fancy new machine, is it really important than doing it the old way and doctors could practice medicine using the most effective approaches on a budget. I know my grandfather had to be really convinced to spend a large sum for a new x-ray machine since he had to explain his budget to a commitee and that was partially with local citizens on it. Since it allowed a film hard copy of an x-ray a big deal he moved to get it and explain it was better for these reasons- they could keep a record for study to see if the condition changed, other doctors could get a copy and assist with added treatment and it used less radiation so it was safer to do more of them.

Just look now, how many doctors keep lists of cheap drugs from Walmart in their offices to use I see very few, my doctor does plus one from Target and Sweetbay Supermarkets all of which have cheap drug programs. But I mentioned this to a specialist and that I had to work within a budget he couldn't handle it. For those of you knocking the free market Walmart alone started a new trend saving consumers a great deal of money. My own drugs went from over $100 to $20 a month thanks to them. Doctors don't as a rule care about costs anymore, neither do hospitals or the government or the patients- there is no longer a cost containment system. I just want that to be true again. If you go to a doctor everyone has a say in the system you by paying for the visit, the hospital and clinics that offer higher level care answer to the community and state and that they work in a budget like normal people. If a hospital recieve X number of dollars per year they would have to decide how to most wisely use that to cover the citizens in a plan locally approved. I don't know why everyone has a problem with this. I trust a local city council far more than anyone else I can talk to them easier and they answer to the voters more directly.

But still what do the candidates have planned that is my question even Hillary is unclear as to how she intends to work her miracle program.

[Sherona]

decided I am a bit too biased in this situation so wont say what I was goiong to..that and too tired to think properly.


just going to say that I have been in these "public ward" charity hospitals..they are underfunded, understaffed, and over worked....it was a nightmare, and I still actually bear physical as well as mental scars from my stay there.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Why would you want them to fix this problem Ruby?
This is what your Capitalist Eutopian society would do.
Keep the rich healthy and happy, use the poor and disguard them when they are of no further use.
After all, there are plenty more where they came from...

WOW... very strong statement. But am afraid it may be the truth.

[RubySlippers]

And if the government at the Federal level would be restrained as per the will of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution maybe they would have more Health Care and better jobs. Take one area the military the Constitution permits raising taxes for an army for TWO YEARS to bolster state militias and the naval forces during a time of war. If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget. And could lower taxes on the people considerably. With more money in their pockets they would have more money to pay for Health Care. The same if you get rid of any other government agency not necessary and required to run its Consitutional duties. Including cutting regulations that make business more expensive where such laws are not required under the Constitution or Amendments. That bit of logic seems to miss everyone a minimal Federal Government leaves them in need of far fewer funds and that means less taxes. And States can tax on their end to take up the slack as can counties but the voters will have far more power to keep those increases sensible.

And the Counties and States can set up any form of Health Care program they wish and could work as groups under interstate agreements, there doesn't need to be a Federal program or oversight.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

RubySlippers  having grown up a Air Force brat and being around the military.  I have to say that the proposal to disband the army and air force.  Or should a say move it over to the control of the states.  Is really highly inconceivable.   The make up of armies and technology is not the same as it was in the founding of our country.   The logistics of such is really fool hardy.  Besides, this is the national guard and the air national guard anywhys.

I like to point out the fact, that you do not mention the navy or marines for this.  Simple reason, states with no body of water.  Would not support having a navy.  They have no need, not unless to late with and if the other states along the coast are threaten.  This would put a  burden of all the navy and marines cost on those states.  Thus why the navy was never considered.   Now how would that apply, without naming states.  How would they contribute, what kind of air force or army would they put forward.  The equipment how would it work.  What type of gun to issue.  Does Illinois by from Boeing, while California buys from Lockheed.   Can Rhode Island even field a squadron of planes.  Who has tankers, or the medivacs the night in gales.     Or how about the air force weather planes.  That go out and fly through a hurricane.  Who funds that.  Is it Florida,  do they do it all on their own.  Perhaps with a few of the other coastal states.  Does Minnesota, I mean they don't have to worry about such.  So why should they.

No this  is not an answer to helping gain funds for a comprehensive health care.  Though better budget responsibility.   Leadership that is not inept, that will not rush us into a war that was not needed.   That will if goes to war, do so with rational and intelligent decisions behind the actions.    Then perhaps we begin to save money and alas have funds to be able to have a health care package. 

[Humble Scribe]

Take one area the military the Constitution permits raising taxes for an army for TWO YEARS to bolster state militias and the naval forces during a time of war. If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget.

How? You'd just be paying it in state taxes instead of national ones.

Look, there are all kinds of arguments about at what level it's appropriate to run each kind of government service, but surely even if nothing else, national defence has to be run at a national level. It can only ever be less efficient at a state level. How can a state afford to pay for nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers? Would you give each state 10 or so nuclear warheads each? Will they each have to develop their own nuclear infrastructure to support them? Including reprocessing plants, test sites... where will Rhode Island test its missiles?

It sounds like you are advocating dismissing the federal government and becoming 50 nations, and if you think that will lower your taxes, you are living in cloud cuckooland.

[Sherona]

If we just eliminated the Army and Air Force and handed that to the States to set-up we would save a huge portion of funds from our annual budget. And could lower taxes on the people considerably.

Erm can anyone remember oh a tiny little war called the CIVIL war that was in a good majority fought because the States wanted to have autonomy from the US government? This would just open the door for another to happen.

Ok Slavery was a big issue then, it was one of the major reasons (unfortunately) that the states that suceded(ok I know thats not spelled right) from the Union...The Union wanted to abolish slavery, and those states wanted to keep such laws governed by the states..whats to stop the states disagreeign about issues and going and invading another state...its silly.


I also suppose that you haven't lived through a major riot where the federal government had to come in because even the state national guardsmen couldn't quite quell it? (60's era stuff) You can not just take away national defensees and say "Each state its own" because that would make our small states a good vulnerability point. Mr. White wants to invade US, so instead of picking California as an entry point (amongst the biggest population, hence more taxes and more military personell) they pick Rhode island..and one by one knock through the states because there is no national defense..atleast this is how I am viewing the whole "Disband the army and make it the states point of view"

Another point, is there are poor states. Louisiana, Mississippi are two of the poorest, how the hell is saying "No federal government" goign to help these? They barely having enough funds now, take away Federal aide and boom.

ALSO, when natural disasters happen, katrina was a horrible FUBAR moment for our government, but things like Andrew the tornados in Oklahoma in 98 and in 03, national aid, national guard organized BY the federalo government was sent in...


Personally saying that each state needs to be autonomous is basically saying lets make 50 small tiny countries vulnerable and inefficient rather then 1 good size country that needs to fix its problems.

[LordAnubis]

Every state for themselves was tried, the Articles of Confederation, it didn't work out.  The Founding fathers didn't want the government to be static and tied to old ideas, that is why there is a process to amend the constitution and it was purposefully written Vague.  To allow it to grow and change as the need arose.

Military spending is maybe 25% of the budget, while yeah a signifcant amount of money government is still running in the red, it'd just get moved to the other government agencies that need money.

Then you have the new State funded militaries that you now need to tax for, only now the military spending is split up between a much smaller group of people run by a government body that doesn't have the power to over spend when suddenly war expenses outstrips the onhand money.

I'll agree I wish the govenement hadn't done it for the most recent war, but a war isn't cheap and you can't tell a soldier you sent overseas to fight, "Sorry, it isn't in the budget for you to get bullets or a trip home, good luck."  Anything that is going to bleed money has to be run by the Federal government, because it'll bankrupt a state.

I have a feeling this arguement will be posted at some point so I wanted to head it off now.  Yes, it isn't a good thing for the government to bleed money and it'd be great if it could keep from over spending, but people keep expecting a free lunch.  People want government services but they want lower taxes.  They want the government to step in and protect them from one persons abuse while leaving them alone to do what they like.  People have been trying to balance the budget, but to balance the budget you have to either increase your inflow, taxes, or decrease your expendatures, government services.

The question then becomes, what do you cut?  And think on that carefully, there are no government agencies created to screw people over, every single one was born out of a need expressed from the people and while it may not be running as best as it could be there are people benefiting from the agencies.

[Sherona]

I have a feeling this arguement will be posted at some point so I wanted to head it off now.  Yes, it isn't a good thing for the government to bleed money and it'd be great if it could keep from over spending, but people keep expecting a free lunch.  People want government services but they want lower taxes.  They want the government to step in and protect them from one persons abuse while leaving them alone to do what they like.  People have been trying to balance the budget, but to balance the budget you have to either increase your inflow, taxes, or decrease your expendatures, government services.

I agree with this hesitantly. Hesitantly only because I do not want to make it seem as if I think that those who do need the government funding that are drawing our fnds int he red more and more each year are to blame.. But on the whole. I agree. Cant have your cake and eat it too. :)

[LordAnubis]

Oh I don't think the peopleusing the government programs are to blame.  There are alot of people who need the funds they are recieving.  I was more trying to get at that if you're going to balance the budget you're going to have to raise taxes or start hurting people who need government support.  And finding a job isn't much of an answer these days since out sourcing makes you compete for some jobs on a global market where costs of living are lower.

[Zakharra]

 There is also a lot of people who just mooch off of the system. Scamming it. They can work, but they are too lazy or like the easy way out on other people's backs.

[Nothing]

I don't have healthcare, and I don't have a job....but my boyfriend has two :)

No, I worked for a while, always for family...after my dad sold his business, I lost my job and spent 6 months going to interviews....sent in about 50-60 applications a week, got maybe 2-3 calls back, and never, not once, came close to getting hired....I have really bad social anxiety, and I guess people can tell that I just really am not comfortable outside my home, and they just didn't want me working for them....

So, now my boyfriend works 70 hours a week to try and support us, because he doesn't want me to work. I feel bad about it, but...I tried..I don't really know what else I can do other than go back to the panic attacks before and after the interviews...and that didn't even work out...constant rejections started to play a pretty bad role on my mental stability, which wasn't all that great in the first place....

As for healthcare...well, I sure as hell can't afford it. Almost nobody in my neighborhood can, but then I live out in the middle of nowhere in a trailer park...lots of people around here are on government funding and welfare, ect. ect. Some of them genuinely deserve it, and some of them are just milking the government for a free ride.
And, as for government funding and help for us, well....we make too much money, since he works, and we're not crazy enough to get help, Depression and social anxiety and bi-polar just aren't enough to qualify for disability... so they just kinda told me to fuck off and get a job...but in a much nicer, more professional way :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

No one is going to fix the issue.

The fundamental problem with American policymakers is that politicians evaluate proposed policies based on how well those policies conform to ideology rather than whether or not they actually work.

One example of this was midnight basketball programs...the local government funded night sports programs for at-risk youth.  The programs were proven up one side and down the other to pay for themselves many times over in terms of reduced crime and increased academic performance.  But conservative politicians couldn't stand the fact that these kids were getting "something for nothing" and killed the programs.

Lest anybody think I'm picking on the Right, the Left is just as good at this sort of thing...can anyone say "ethanol?"  Ethanol programs are popular with farmers, and enable politicians to make speeches about how they're "doing something" about the oil shortage.  Problem is, ethanol takes almost as much fossil fuel input to grow (corn) than the oil it replaces.  We couldn't even run a fifth of the cars on the road on ethanol--unless we don't mind starving.  But ethanol subsidies keep growing faster than the corn itself.

So if politicians can't see the wisdom in funding prevention programs that pay for themselves and then some, and insist on funding programs that Physics and Chemistry 101 students could see are useless, I really don't see any likelihood of healthcare reform.

[Methos]

Healthcare is a rather tricky subject and I doubt there is really any good answer that will satisfy anyone on the subject. If there exists a perfect health care system I defy you to show it to me. All of my personal encounters with a health care system have been a socialist one.

Sherona described a charity hospital as "under funded, over worked and understaffed" that tends to describe the entire Canadian medical system. Socializing the system doesn't solve shortages, guarantee more or better treatments or easy access.

All we have is lousy health care rationed out to people and paid for with tax dollars. Its till nearly impossible to see a doctor in some parts of the country, not because you 'lack coverage' but because the doctors aren't taking new patients as they have too many as it is. You'll wait hours in the emergency rooms and if you need surgery that isn't life threatening good luck having that any time soon. That and there is nothing really which holds the system accountable in any significant way.

This is what we get and HEALTH CARE consumes more than HALF of every provincial government's budget. (that's the equivalent of a State) Beyond that based on the current level of spending and an aging population health care is either going to have to be radically altered or its going to beggar either our governments or those of us in the work force with crippling taxes.

Part of the problem here is so people feel they have some sort of magical entitlement to health care. This sadly is a myth. There is no golden promissary note from heaven which says everyone has the right to see a doctor for every problem that ails them. We all don't wind up with the same cars, the same houses, the same disposable income to take vacations and buy things with. Health care is no different, its just another service, fetishing it as some sort of 'right' simply causes debates to devolve in shrill screaming about people dying in the streets which really is a myth.

If you really wanted to look at what's keeping health care from being unaffordable its generally unionized workers in the health care sector in Canada, likely the same in the states. And in the states its the absurd tort laws you have. I mean as a lawyer some part of me gets hard at the thought of multi-million dollar awards for things that might be worth a couple hundred grand here. Its a huge drain on your insurance industry and your premiums are charged accordingly. Although ironically the same politicians who want to socialize the health care industry don't want to touch either of those problems as they're in bed with the unions and trial lawyers.

[Humble Scribe]

Demand for healthcare will always be greater than supply. After that you have to ration it. You can ration it by clinical need, as happens in Europe and Canada, or you can ration it by price, as it is in the US. I know which system I think is fairer.

Protip: most 'socialised' healthcare systems spend far less than the US (both as a proportion of GDP and on a per capita basis) and yet deliver as good an outcome if not better (especially considering the quarter of Americans who have no health insurance).

[Celestial Goblin]

Part of the problem here is so people feel they have some sort of magical entitlement to health care. This sadly is a myth. There is no golden promissary note from heaven which says everyone has the right to see a doctor for every problem that ails them. We all don't wind up with the same cars, the same houses, the same disposable income to take vacations and buy things with. Health care is no different, its just another service, fetishing it as some sort of 'right' simply causes debates to devolve in shrill screaming about people dying in the streets which really is a myth.

This is pure bullshit and a reason why I have no more respect for libertarianism than I do for soviet communism or anarcho-primitivism.

A society that doesn't recognize healthcare as a right is dysfunctional in the same way a society that doesn't provide free education to children or a police force equally protecting all citizens is dysfunctional.

Basically, it comes down to you being willing to let someone go without medical attention in order to have more money for a car, house or vacation.
My question is, what if you'd be on the other side?
Were you ever trough a surgery? What anasenthic did they give you?
Have you ever had to go to work with a fever?
Did you ever fear for life of someone you care about?
Do you know someone who was permanently disfigured?
Do you know someone who gone trough an abortion?
Do you know someone with mental problems? Dangerous to others?
Did you ever have allergies? Allergies that can lead to a painful death?
Did you ever use a pain-killer? How would you feel without it?
Did you ever break something? Were in a cast?
Do you have someone in your family with a serious illness like cancer or alzheimers?
Do you have kids?

Imagine being in any of the above situations, not being well off and having someone tell you that you can suffer because there's no 'right' to get any help.

And that's just the moral argument. There are practical arguments for healthcare being a guaranteed right as well.
(like epidemics, desperate people breaking law, people with rare diseases gettinh shafted, hospitalization costing more than prevention and the fact that other people can bring more benefit than 'cars,houses and money for vacation')

[Methos]

Generally I don't believe in the existance of positive rights. I think the whole notion of entitlement is a bunch of socialist non-sense that is probounded by bleeding hearts and those who cast an envenious eye upon the possessions of those who are more clever, harder worker or simply more fortunate than they. I'm content with the government staying out of my way and leaving me to my own devices to make of my life what I will. If that results in misfortunate for others - such is life an element of misery and imperfection has existed in the human condition for as long as the species has lasted. There is no perfect tomorrow where everyone has enough, there are no sick or diseased or anything of that nature. Its the stuff of pipe dreams, fantasies and science fiction. Comparing a police force to health care is also hyperbole, enforcing laws is clearly a negative not positive right and as such a police force would exist in even in a state without any positive entitlements.

I don't believe there *is* any right to get help. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant. What your doing Celestial isn't appealing to logic but emotion. Something bad may happen to someone I care about or myself therefore the government should save everyone? That presumes that a) I'm incapable of adequately retaining insurance through private means - not really a problem for most capable people who've obtained education or skills training and that b) those I care about are incapable of doing the same.

But why Celestial should I be my brother's keeper - not even my brother's keeper but the keeper of a vast host of people I've never met? Why should my tax dollars be devoted to supporting the poor health choices of people who injest all manners of illegal substances, fail to adequately maintain their bodies, have poor diets, drink, smoke and make a variety of other advised decisions? Why should their choices be subsidized by an unlimited call upon my money?

If my labour goes to generating my wage - it should be mine to do with as I please. Beyond some common items like roadways, police and fire services and national defense should I not be free to make such arrangements as I deem fit to deal with other aspects of my life? Who are others to demand that I contribute to paying for the education of their children, their healthcare and other programs?

A practical argument? All you've really made there is an argument for legitimizing the theft of money from people because you think the 'government can spend it better than they can'. That's really not an argument so much as an articulation of envy. As for the superior performance of a government managed system - not really. A monopoly such as exists in Canada compliment by a monopsony of unionized health care worker labour creates the most inefficient system that can occur under any economic model. There is no practical benefit to it.

Here's another question for you Celestial - why should you pay for health care for people who aren't even in your country legally? I all your arguments apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other person. After all they are sick and needy. I mean really following your arguments to their logical conclusion non-one should have any more than anyone else and we should all live in barely above third world conditions once we've redistributed everything as things like 'cars, homes and vacations don't really matter'. 

[Elven Sex Goddess]

The difference between having a comprehensive heath care program, of a socialist nature.  Is summed up in how people view this line.

Some realize that are government was set up to grow and change to reflect the needs of the people. So they view the line as read'

'We the people~~~'

While others, only concerned with themselves.  What they can gain, and who cares about their fellow man.  View the line as;

'Me the people~~~'

As it is not about what is good for all.  But what is good just for me.  It matters not if your born again Christian or an Scientology or an atheist.  It seems the only time that people worry about the we of society is when their on the short end of the getting fucked stick.  Other ways it is all about me me me.   

[Celestial Goblin]

Generally I don't believe in the existance of positive rights. I think the whole notion of entitlement is a bunch of socialist non-sense that is probounded by bleeding hearts

The distinction between positive and negative rights is purely theoretical.
You can frame everything both ways.
A right to healthcare is also a right to not suffer degrading conditions caused by things beyond your control.
Just the same as the right not to be beaten or mugged can be framed as a right to the time and work of a policeman.

If I'd want to be an egoistic git like you, let's try:
"Why should my tax money pay for a policeman that will save you from having your legs broken? I'm big and strong and got a gun, so I can defend myself."

Same goes with military... "Why oh why should my tax money should fund guns and missiles to keep Osama Bin Laden away? When he comes, I'll just convert to Islam. I'm a man, so I won't have to wear a burka so it's all good..."

and those who cast an envenious eye upon the possessions of those who are more clever, harder worker or simply more fortunate than they.

Envy and a desire not to suffer because of illness are the same thing for you?
Damn those people, envious of medicine, prothesthics and wheelchairs, huh?

I'm content with the government staying out of my way and leaving me to my own devices to make of my life what I will.

If that results in misfortunate for others - such is life an element of misery and imperfection has existed in the human condition for as long as the species has lasted. There is no perfect tomorrow where everyone has enough, there are no sick or diseased or anything of that nature. Its the stuff of pipe dreams, fantasies and science fiction.

Suffering cannot be eliminated completely.
But life can be made nicer, easier and safer. Read up on 19 century UK and it's unrestrained capitalism. Read up on what the results were.

Also, those who say that it's 'not worth' to make things better are those that already have it good.

Comparing a police force to health care is also hyperbole, enforcing laws is clearly a negative not positive right and as such a police force would exist in even in a state without any positive entitlements.

See above. Each 'right' and each societal thing can be given a different political spin, based on what suits the politician better.

I don't believe there *is* any right to get help. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant. What your doing Celestial isn't appealing to logic but emotion. Something bad may happen to someone I care about or myself therefore the government should save everyone?
That presumes that a) I'm incapable of adequately retaining insurance through private means - not really a problem for most capable people who've obtained education or skills training and that b) those I care about are incapable of doing the same.

So should I logically conclude that:
a) you've got no emotions or no respect for emotions
b) you only care about people who are insured
c) if you'd be poor, uninsured and unable to provide for yourself, you'd suffer without complaint?

But why Celestial should I be my brother's keeper - not even my brother's keeper but the keeper of a vast host of people I've never met?

I'm also not 'my brother's keeper'. I don't spen

Why should my tax dollars be devoted to supporting the poor health choices of people who injest all manners of illegal substances, fail to adequately maintain their bodies, have poor diets, drink, smoke and make a variety of other advised decisions? Why should their choices be subsidized by an unlimited call upon my money?

First, this is a 'strawman' argument. Only some illnesses are caused by 'poor health choices'. Most people don't choose to be ill.

There's also a touch of USA prohibition(or Victorian England) in your thinking... Rich people can use and abuse vices, but poor people should keep themselves clean and sober, huh? That's a fertile ground for puritanism a generation later...

If my labour goes to generating my wage - it should be mine to do with as I please. Beyond some common items like roadways, police and fire services and national defense should I not be free to make such arrangements as I deem fit to deal with other aspects of my life? Who are others to demand that I contribute to paying for the education of their children, their healthcare and other programs?

"I'm a travelling salesman and don't own a house, why should my money fund fire prevention for your house?"
"I'm a cross-country runner, why should my money fund roads?"
"I don't own anything worth stealing, why should my money fund police?"
"I'm Chuck Norris, why should my money fund national defense?"

Oh, and a good reason for publically funded education... Your kids will have to live with kids of other people.

A practical argument? All you've really made there is an argument for legitimizing the theft of money from people because you think the 'government can spend it better than they can'. That's really not an argument so much as an articulation of envy.

What's the deal with the word 'envy' anyway? Are you trying to argue from a religious position?

But what's more important... you know what 'theft' is? Theft is taking someone's property. And property is also not a heaven-given right that people are born with. Property is something your goverment guarantees, just like it guarantees your money are worth more than the paper they are printed on. (unless, as a libertarian, you prefer gold currency *snicker*)

As for the superior performance of a government managed system - not really. A monopoly such as exists in Canada compliment by a monopsony of unionized health care worker labour creates the most inefficient system that can occur under any economic model. There is no practical benefit to it.

There is no practical benefit to it for people who are able to afford treatment for every illness they have. So either very rich people or very healthy people.

Here's another question for you Celestial - why should you pay for health care for people who aren't even in your country legally? I all your arguments apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other person. After all they are sick and needy.

Because they're still people and I treat them in the same way I'd want to be treated... You know, emotions, those funny things that make us more than animals?

Would you be ok with denying illegal immigrants other citizen rights as well? Police, legal, fire coverage, etc?

I mean really following your arguments to their logical conclusion non-one should have any more than anyone else and we should all live in barely above third world conditions once we've redistributed everything as things like 'cars, homes and vacations don't really matter'. 

I think you got it backward. Redistributing money to fund things necessary to live like a human being does not equal redistributing *all* money equally.

Also, I didn't state that luxuries 'don't matter'. They just matter less than the basic human needs like a need to eat,drink,excrete(made impossible by some medical conditions, awful way to go) and not feel pain.
There's some scientific table called 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' that can be found on wikipedia and other places. It illustrates the difference between things that 'matter' more and less.

[Methos]

Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd. The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments. The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.

The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.

Again claiming that you can call a negative right a positive right on a whim - may work in your mind but really any one with any philosophical background is going to simply call bullshit on that. The fact you can't draw proper distinctions is a sign of your own deficient thinking as opposed to the lack of any clear difference.

Again your not really making an argument - one your attacking me for being unfeeling and uncaring as opposed to making any sort of reasoned statement as to why I should believe in some sort of socialist scheme. Your entire argument is feeling and personal slights as opposed to having any sort of logical basis so really if that's the best you have I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

Again you seem to be making points that don't address what I actually said just some niggling issue. Do I actually say that all maladies are the result of bad choices? No but many of them are and a host of others are exacerbated by them. As such the point is quite valid that in a socialist scheme I pay for the bad choices of other people - you've offered absolutely no reason why anyone should do so.

As for whether in a system where everyone pays for their own vices - sure if your responsible for your own choices and pay accordingly why should I give a tinker's damn as to whether or not someone smokes a box of cigars, drinks a fifth of gin and calls that breakfast?

"I'm a travelling salesman and don't own a house, why should my money fund fire prevention for your house?"
"I'm a cross-country runner, why should my money fund roads?"
"I don't own anything worth stealing, why should my money fund police?"
"I'm Chuck Norris, why should my money fund national defense?"

Oh, and a good reason for publically funded education... Your kids will have to live with kids of other people

That's just silliness and again it doesn't address any of the points I'm making, and its really fairly juvenile.

Oh so you don't believe in property either? Personally I believe in the bodily integrity of every person, their ownership of self and the labor that results from that. Given that their work is their own. You on the other hand through every argument have more or less stated your quite happy to tryanically subject everyone to some sort of utilitarian scheme on no better basis than "people want stuff and should have it" which is hardly a well developed idealogical position.

As for illegal immigrants as far as I'm concerned send them back where they came from. There is a reason there is a legal immigration process, it should be followed and the rule of law obeyed.

And really if your going to be all communist about health care comrade why are you attempting to stop there? Surely food is more important than health care - and given that there are millions that are hungry why should we stop at those who don't have health insurance in developed countries? Your argument's logical conclusion is we should simply take away all excess from those of us "who don't need it as badly" and give it away to the needy. There is a nigh infinite number of needy in Africa and I'm sure than need a sack of grain better than your ipod hippy.

[Elvi]

Methos,
I am not really going to get into the 'arguement' you are having, because quite frankly, it would take me all night to even start addressing your points.

I would ask you one thing though.
If you were in this country, would you turn medical treatment down because you haven't contributed to it?

(Oh and there is a very good reason why immigrents, illegal or otherwise, should be treated, even without the humanitarian side of things. One sick person, say with TB, untreated, means the potential to have many sick people. Sickness and disease doesn't check anyones status before it infects you.....)

[Celestial Goblin]

Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd.

Uh... why?
Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments.

Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

Also, people who propose privatized law enforcement and self-defense based policies don't exist just in my imagination. They're real and often put forward similar arguments to yours.

The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.

You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.

Dude, I know history.
Honest question, are you in favor of removing all, 'socialist' as you call them, rights that were given to people afterwards?
If a worker gets fired with no compensation after getting injured, that's ok too?
Is hiring kids to work ok?
You accuse me of utopianism, but where does *your* 'utopia' end?

Again claiming that you can call a negative right a positive right on a whim - may work in your mind but really any one with any philosophical background is going to simply call bullshit on that. The fact you can't draw proper distinctions is a sign of your own deficient thinking as opposed to the lack of any clear difference.

Prove it. I gave you examples.

Again your not really making an argument - one your attacking me for being unfeeling and uncaring as opposed to making any sort of reasoned statement as to why I should believe in some sort of socialist scheme. Your entire argument is feeling and personal slights as opposed to having any sort of logical basis so really if that's the best you have I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again you seem to be making points that don't address what I actually said just some niggling issue. Do I actually say that all maladies are the result of bad choices? No but many of them are and a host of others are exacerbated by them. As such the point is quite valid that in a socialist scheme I pay for the bad choices of other people - you've offered absolutely no reason why anyone should do so.

So, if some maladies are a result of bad choices and others are not, we can either...

Help people who suffered innocently while helping some who made bad choices as well.

or

Let innocent people suffer together with those who made bad choices.

Basically, you're advocating group responsibility here.

As for whether in a system where everyone pays for their own vices - sure if your responsible for your own choices and pay accordingly why should I give a tinker's damn as to whether or not someone smokes a box of cigars, drinks a fifth of gin and calls that breakfast?

Have you considered a system where abusing alcohol and such makes a person forefeit their right to free healthcare? That way the 'more fortunate' could still indulge to their hearts desire without having to tax unhealthy products.

That's just silliness and again it doesn't address any of the points I'm making, and its really fairly juvenile.

Oh so you don't believe in property either? Personally I believe in the bodily integrity of every person, their ownership of self and the labor that results from that. Given that their work is their own. You on the other hand through every argument have more or less stated your quite happy to tryanically subject everyone to some sort of utilitarian scheme on no better basis than "people want stuff and should have it" which is hardly a well developed idealogical position.

Bodily integrity, ownership of self and ones labour. Ok.
How are those more valid or a 'well developed position' than what I propose? Are they god-given rights?

Can you convince me to honour those 'rights', using logic?

(and by the way, I do believe in property. After taxes.)

As for illegal immigrants as far as I'm concerned send them back where they came from. There is a reason there is a legal immigration process, it should be followed and the rule of law obeyed.

In a hypotethical situation where an illegal immigrant is caught and they will die or suffer a permanent injury if they aren't given immidiate assistance... what would you do?

And really if your going to be all communist about health care comrade why are you attempting to stop there? Surely food is more important than health care - and given that there are millions that are hungry why should we stop at those who don't have health insurance in developed countries?

This isn't communism I'm advocating. I remember communism and it was a totally different (and wrong) beast.

But now... duh... you value your own (car/house/whatever) more than feeding hungry people? You know, one of the reasons Joseph Stalin is considered a monster on par with Hitler is not that he nationalized property, but that his nationalization program led to famine and people dying of hunger. (some say it was on purpose, but that's an unrelated topic)

Your argument's logical conclusion is we should simply take away all excess from those of us "who don't need it as badly" and give it away to the needy. There is a nigh infinite number of needy in Africa and I'm sure than need a sack of grain better than your ipod hippy.

We don't need to get rid of ipods to feed Africa, actually. To stop famine in Africa we need:
1) a stable political situation there. (NATO, UN, get to work)
2) less protectionist agricultural tariffs in developed countries. (EU, get to work)
3) help them set up the farms. (we could do it with charity alone if we tried to)
4) provide contraceptives and sexual education. (Pope, please?)

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Stats
   
   
Re: Health Care and the Candidates
« Reply #29 on: Today at 04:49:05 pm »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
Its hardly a purely theoretical distinction the right to non-interference within the boundaries of the law is rather distinctive from "the government giving you stuff". Its just silly to try to pretend there isn't any difference and your attempt to compare law enforcement to health care is rather absurd.
Uh... why?
Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The existance of law enforcement is essential to the functioning of a state, publicly funded socialist health care clearly is not. As for the military there is a basic need for any organized government to defend itself from other governments.
Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

Also, people who propose privatized law enforcement and self-defense based policies don't exist just in my imagination. They're real and often put forward similar arguments to yours.

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The existance of such a military force really shouldn't be in disbute you're simply attempting to muddy the issue by raising current US foreign policy which is entirely irrelevent to the argument at hand.
You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

Quote from: Methos on Today at 04:07:40 pm
The whole "unreastrained capitalism" argument is really further non-sequitor. Considering the miserable circumstances that existed prior to the industrial revolution it wasn't that bad. Furthermore, much of the poverty of that period was caused by the last vestigages of feudalism and the enclosure of the commons. So really your blaming the wrong system there might want to check into a bit of history.
Dude, I know history.
Honest question, are you in favor of removing all, 'socialist' as you call them, rights that were given to people afterwards?
If a worker gets fired with no compensation after getting injured, that's ok too?
Is hiring kids to work ok?
You accuse me of utopianism, but where does *your* 'utopia' end?

Since the two of you seem to be so keen to debate back and forth.  Drawing upon history. Perhaps a little quote straight from one of the men deemed a father of modern day capitalism.   

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies...

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

(Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X)

Note the lines that is bold.   How come most capitalists conveniently over look this or ignore such.

[Methos]

Why wouldn't I have contributed to it Elvi? I mean I'm not much for purely hypothetical contexts that lack any justification. Nor have I said their anything wrong with charity, quite the opposite really its admirable. However, I do dislike forced confiscation of other people's wealth.

Why is the right to property more 'real' than a right to health?

Try reading what I have to say and then it would be rather clear to you that its more real because its a function of self-ownership to own property. The right to the state to provide you healthcare doesn't derive from any such principle or really any that you've articulated than "I want it to." and want doesn't provide sufficient justification for much of anything.

Ok, and why is the 'functioning of state' more essential than health?
Again, put yourself in a position of someone in critical need of treatment. What is more important to you? Life or whether your state functions properly.

This is either extremely stupid or intellectually dishonest. How do you even propose for people to recieve government mandated health care if you don't think there is a necessity to establish some sort of orderly society to begin with? Good luck setting up a socialist wealth confiscation scheme in pure anarchy. You simply can't have an organized society with a system of laws without some sort of enforcement mechanism.

You can replace 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Burkas' with 'Atilla the Hun' and 'sharpened sticks' or any other invader. My point is that if we leave other people without healthcare, why should we fight in their defense if it doesn't pay of to us?
Doctors and soldiers are not that different, you know. Both work to protect us from keeling over:)

Preventing others from terminating your existance by maintaining the means of self defence is not comparable to mandating everyone recieve healthcare to the point where they're 97 years old before they pass on. One is a basic vestiage of the state, the ability to preserve its continued existance. The other one is a bell and whistle which strickly speaking is not necessary. There is no reason people can't look to their health through private means, on the other hand we can't exactly contract privately for the services of an armor. Or if we did there would be no government but some sort of anarchistic status.

Prove it. I gave you examples

Not really, you insist on trying to avoid a rather clear distinction. You've offered nothing more than sophistry on the point so until you actually adress it your examples are disingenious and irrelevent.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again an ad hominem fallacy, which you seem rather fond of indulging in. Furthermore, emotional responses don't prove a point. Rather those seeking to provoke an emotional response rather than engaging in substantive argumentation generally don't have one or at best are conceding the weakness of their argument and as such are talking about 'how it makes them feel'.

So, if some maladies are a result of bad choices and others are not, we can either...

Help people who suffered innocently while helping some who made bad choices as well.

or

Let innocent people suffer together with those who made bad choices.

Basically, you're advocating group responsibility here.

Actually I'm saying everyone should be responsible for themself. Full stop.

Have you considered a system where abusing alcohol and such makes a person forefeit their right to free healthcare? That way the 'more fortunate' could still indulge to their hearts desire without having to tax unhealthy products.

Why should I consider it? I've stated I think everyone should be responsible for themself. If they make bad choices they should pay for it themself. I'm not the one wishing to take from another to benefit anyone else. Your the one engaging in that sort of authoritarianism. You can speculate on telling people what to eat and how much exercise they should have, but personally I find it creepy.

As for how ownership of self. If we don't own ourselves what value do we have? What rights could we possibly have if we do not have a right to self? Its rather fundamental. And its a rather more developed position than your right to "stuff because it would be bad if people were sick" position.

As for saying healthcare is different than food? Why isn't food more basic to survival than health care? Lots of people lack food - why if we have some huge moral responsibility to everyone in need hold anything back? You can't make one argument and say your own argument doesn't apply in almost exactly the same context. In fact people are starving its even more pressing that all our excess is taken and given to starving children that have never did anything wrong. They're not just sick - they don't have food. They wish their problems were that they just needed to see a doctor.

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well. But your quite happy to put it in charge of health care. The simple fact is the government running almost anything doesn't work very well. I completely agree, which is why I'm arguing against the government being in charge. But hey since your now willing to concede your entire argument - thanks that should save us some time.

Oh so Africa needs a more stable political situation and is partially to blame for its own problems. How is that any different than saying those without health insurance need to get their own life together, get a job and get insured so they can deal with their medical problems instead of expecting some one else to fix their life for them?

[Elvi]

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well.

Please Methos,
Could you show me where the reference to communism comes from?
I can't see it being mentioned anywhere. 

[RubySlippers]

My problem with the European Health Care Model is frankly its a matter of size of the nations involved. The United States is huge with a very eclectic population and a $10+ trillion national debt in other words the Federal Government in broke and in debt. We can't afford to even think about such large scale reforms at the Federal government level even if they were allowed under the Constitution to do so. Counties and States might be able to act on this they are traditionally in our country better at adapting and developing new programs efficiently. And some states are acting to set-up some Health Care reforms.

Lets be blunt most of your nations such as England are just financially far better off, smaller in population and have frankly more efficient governments. In our country the smaller the government and more local the more efficient it usually gets a township or city is better than a county a county better than a state and a state far better than the Federal Government.

As for what the Federal Government can do just cutting down regulations not absolutely necessary for public health would be a start such as the FDA just seeing if a drug is safe not whether it works or is better than an existing drug. The former I would argue may be justified the latter is a private matter between doctors and their patients to determine if a drug should be used or not. I could point out others such as making it hard for a foreign properly trained doctor from practicing primary care in the United States I know three Cuban doctors that can't practice in the US and are perfectly well trained for general care. They may have a poor country but do have good medical schools. That is an outrage when we are desperate for primary care physicians in this country. Little things like this could ease pressures and not cost a dime.

[Methos]

This isn't communism I'm advocating. I remember communism and it was a totally different (and wrong) beast.

But now... duh... you value your own (car/house/whatever) more than feeding hungry people? You know, one of the reasons Joseph Stalin is considered a monster on par with Hitler is not that he nationalized property, but that his nationalization program led to famine and people dying of hunger. (some say it was on purpose, but that's an unrelated topic)

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

[Celestial Goblin]

Try reading what I have to say and then it would be rather clear to you that its more real because its a function of self-ownership to own property.

You can own yourself without owning external property. Not that I'm advocating such, but it's a valid position.

The right to the state to provide you healthcare doesn't derive from any such principle or really any that you've articulated than "I want it to." and want doesn't provide sufficient justification for much of anything.

But there's still the fundamental question 'why'?
I'll repeat myself, but...
Why are rights deriving from self-ownership more valid than rights deriving from ones needs? Why is self-ownership itself a valid right?

Unless you can establish some absolute, it's impossible to say anyone has any rights at all.

Good luck convincing a hungry or ill person that property should be that absolute...

This is either extremely stupid or intellectually dishonest. How do you even propose for people to recieve government mandated health care if you don't think there is a necessity to establish some sort of orderly society to begin with? Good luck setting up a socialist wealth confiscation scheme in pure anarchy. You simply can't have an organized society with a system of laws without some sort of enforcement mechanism.

This is called the 'fish or fishbowl dillema'
I'm not advocating an abolition of society. I'm saying that if the society doesn't provide healthcare, what use is it for someone who'll die without that healthcare?

Also, again as an example (and not a position I really hold), you could theoretically have a society that provides healthcare and has a police force that enforces tax law, but does not protect people from beatings, muggings and rape. (or better yet, it prevents mugging but not rape, for example)

Preventing others from terminating your existance by maintaining the means of self defence is not comparable to mandating everyone recieve healthcare to the point where they're 97 years old before they pass on.

How about 'preventing bacteria/virii/accidents/wild animals/elements from terminating your existance by maintaining means of protection'?
As I said, every 'right' has two sides depending on where you stand.

One is a basic vestiage of the state, the ability to preserve its continued existance. The other one is a bell and whistle which strickly speaking is not necessary.

The state can preserve itself without providing you with police protection.

There is no reason people can't look to their health through private means, on the other hand we can't exactly contract privately for the services of an armor. Or if we did there would be no government but some sort of anarchistic status.

There are many people without ability to look for their health trough private means... that's the crux of this discussion.
Private police force is just as technically viable(and just as bad idea in reality) as private healthcare.

Not really, you insist on trying to avoid a rather clear distinction. You've offered nothing more than sophistry on the point so until you actually adress it your examples are disingenious and irrelevent.

I'm showing you how you apply your 'ideology' selectively to justify using services you need(police, army, fire) while refusing to pay for others. If you reject emotions and morality, sophistry and derision are the only thing you're going to get.

Ok, let's get it straight. You don't have emotions and have no problem with that and you are only interested in arguments that show you how you would benefit?
The amount of misery of another person is irrevelant?

Again an ad hominem fallacy, which you seem rather fond of indulging in. Furthermore, emotional responses don't prove a point. Rather those seeking to provoke an emotional response rather than engaging in substantive argumentation generally don't have one or at best are conceding the weakness of their argument and as such are talking about 'how it makes them feel'.

Ad hominem?
No, I honestly ask if:
you dismiss human emotions as irrevelant
you believe the level of suffering of other people to be irrevelant to the argument
you only admit arguments that point towards your own benefit

Actually I'm saying everyone should be responsible for themself. Full stop.

Even in a situation where a person is harmed by external factors they had no control over?

As for how ownership of self. If we don't own ourselves what value do we have? What rights could we possibly have if we do not have a right to self? Its rather fundamental. And its a rather more developed position than your right to "stuff because it would be bad if people were sick" position.

Right to self and right to property are two separate concepts, though.
I do agree that people should have 100% right to their own body.  The right to own objects and goods (and have the state defend that right) is another thing.

As for saying healthcare is different than food? Why isn't food more basic to survival than health care? Lots of people lack food - why if we have some huge moral responsibility to everyone in need hold anything back? You can't make one argument and say your own argument doesn't apply in almost exactly the same context. In fact people are starving its even more pressing that all our excess is taken and given to starving children that have never did anything wrong. They're not just sick - they don't have food. They wish their problems were that they just needed to see a doctor.

Yes. I'm so authoritharian that I indeed believe no one should go hungry. I'm a regular Hitler. Tough, huh?

Oh so now you say communism and the government running everything doesn't work very well. But your quite happy to put it in charge of health care. The simple fact is the government running almost anything doesn't work very well. I completely agree, which is why I'm arguing against the government being in charge. But hey since your now willing to concede your entire argument - thanks that should save us some time.

First: the problem with XX century communism was not just state ownership of everything. It's like saying that the problem with nazism was too much parades...

Second: the goverment won't automatically run things worse than private entities will, but the goverment needs to be held accountable for what it does.
This is why Soviet communism fell while 'mixed' economies of democratic countries prosper.
(can you point to any country except USA that doesn't have 'socialized' healthcare and prospers nontheless? this is a honest question, mind.)

Oh so Africa needs a more stable political situation and is partially to blame for its own problems.

It doesn't matter who is to blame for the situation in Africa. Local dictators, 17-19 century colonists, goverments of developed countries, multi-national corporations, religious leaders, random factors like geography... they all hold a part of the blame.

Which doesn't change the fact that to the best of our ability we should help, yes.

Since you care so much about self-ownership, that righ it also violated in Africa. Should we also say 'screw it'?

How is that any different than saying those without health insurance need to get their own life together, get a job and get insured so they can deal with their medical problems instead of expecting some one else to fix their life for them?

If I'd say that Africans bought their problems on themselves then it would indeed be not much different. But I didn't say that.

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

The assumption of moral responsibility for well-being(as in basic needs) of other people is not communism. It's not even a postulate  of modern democratic socialism. It's basic human decency.

[Elvi]

Why wouldn't I have contributed to it Elvi? I mean I'm not much for purely hypothetical contexts that lack any justification.

Because you would be a visitor to the country?

Not hypothetical, not without justification.
No-one, whether they are a visitor or not, is turned away in this country, when they need medical treatment.

So I will make this a clearer question.
You have come to Great Britain on holiday and you find yourself in need of medical treatment, would you accept it even though you have not contributed.
(Or are you going to do the 'oh I would have travel insurance' cop out to wiggle out of the question, because believe me, many who visit this country, either for business or pleasure do not)

Nor have I said their anything wrong with charity, quite the opposite really its admirable. However, I do dislike forced confiscation of other people's wealth.

Treatment on the national health service is NOT charity, it is paid for by US the people, for the people who need it.
We also do NOT see it as 'confiscation of wealth', we see it as contributing to the health and welfare of those in our country and it's visitors.

If you knew the history of this country as you profess you do, you will know why the national health service was set up...

[Elvi]

That's the reference, I've simply argued that the logical extension of his point that everyone should have health care is that everyone should have food. After all its an argument based on precisely the same principles and formulated as Celestial Goblin has done so strictly on the basis of emotion how can we not simply turn over what's needed to other people - its a moral responsibility. In other words Communism.

Hang on, are you telling me that anyone who believes that everyone should have access to adequate health care and food, lets even go as far as to add clothing and water, are Communists?

I would love to see/hear, from which source you get this from.....  

[Celestial Goblin]

I would love to see/hear, from which source you get this from.....  

I'll hedge my bets between Ayn Rand and the site 'FreeRepublic'.
I'll also risk a side-bet that Methos didn't spend a single day in poverty...

[kongming]

...I thought the era of "The red menace! Communism is rife! Accuse people of loyalty to Mother Russia, and that means you WIN, because communists are evil!" was over some time ago... such as "before I was even born". Seriously.

It's not communism to look after your own goddamn people. The word you're after is "humane".

[Methos]

I said the logical extension of his argument is communism. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise. He hasn't convincingly disputed it either. Given that his argument is broken down as follows
1) people need/want something
2) I think its important that they have it
3) other people have more stuff I think is less important
4)Therefore, we should take from other people to give it to the people who want something that something being health care

The same argument can be made in support of Communism, you can argue that he's only arguing for degrees of it - but its the same argument and not even a particularly well articulated version.

I'll hedge my bets between Ayn Rand and the site 'FreeRepublic'.
I'll also risk a side-bet that Methos didn't spend a single day in poverty...

Ad hominem again Celestial - you always seem to want to make this personal. If you aren't going to dispute something logically shall we simply grab a measuring tape and be done with it?

As for the origin of the arguments try John Locke and Robert Nozick.

As for why if you have a right to yourself - the answer is that if you don't your a slave. I don't believe people are slaves. The same applies if you don't have a right to result of your own activies, slavery.

If you seriously think a state can opperate without a police force your sadly mistaken. The whole notion of a state is to impose order and allow interacton within set confines. As such there needs to be an enforcement arm of the state namely the police. Its absurd to suggest any state would exist where rape and murder was ignored by the government, as that would in effect be anarchy. Clearly people can pay for their own doctors and that's not necessary to have a functioning state. Your entire comparison is absurd.

No the state doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from getting a cold. As I said you're daft if you can't grasp a basic distinction between negative and positive rights. There aren't "two sides to every coin", this is a case of "I could call your aunt your uncle but it wouldn't mean she had a set of testicles." They're two seperate things, its simply ignorant to insist there is no difference.

Even in a situation where a person is harmed by external factors they had no control over?

Yes.

This is why Soviet communism fell while 'mixed' economies of democratic countries prosper

If by prosper you mean experience aging populations, low birth rates, negative population growth and exist in an entirely unsustainable manner sure. The culture of entitlement essentially is going to defeat itself because those who believe the government is obligated to look after them, never had children to see to them in their old age which was the traditional social security system - families.

There is no reason for be compelled to help anyone. Sure its a nice and decent thing to do. Many will chose to do so voluntarily - charity is a virtue. Forcible redestribution is contemptable.

And Elvi - my experience is that foreigners pay for medical treatment in foreign countries if they are not insured. That's what I'd wind up doing if I needed it.

[Elvi]

No, you didn't say 'the logical extension of his arguement is Communism'.
If that's what you meant then I could equally say that your arguement is for Fascism, capitalism, hell..I could even argue it back around to Communism again.
You are simply using immotive words to try and score a point, especially when you are speaking to a Polish National and then you are wondering why you are getting the reaction that you are.

You have also, not answered my question and have instead side stepped it.
I asked about you and the UK, not 'foreign countries'.

[Jefepato]

I really, really want to dislike the concept of universal health care.  But then, it makes sense for more or less exactly the same broad reasons that public education makes sense, and I certainly don't think public education is a bad idea.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

[Celestial Goblin]

I said the logical extension of his argument is communism. I haven't seen any convincing argument otherwise. He hasn't convincingly disputed it either. Given that his argument is broken down as follows
1) people need/want something
2) I think its important that they have it
3) other people have more stuff I think is less important
4)Therefore, we should take from other people to give it to the people who want something that something being health care

Mostly yes. (though your working hard on twisting my every word to support your agenda)

To me your argument seems to boil down to:
1) right to the fruits of your labor is absolute
2) because it is

Ad hominem again Celestial - you always seem to want to make this personal. If you aren't going to dispute something logically shall we simply grab a measuring tape and be done with it?

Bullseye, huh?
If you never experienced poverty, than I don't think it's an 'ad hominem', because it's relevant to the topic. Ad hominem would occur if I'd say 'I bet you're ugly and dress funny' or something like that.

As for why if you have a right to yourself - the answer is that if you don't your a slave.

This is true.

The same applies if you don't have a right to result of your own activies, slavery.

This is bullshit, though.

If you seriously think a state can opperate without a police force your sadly mistaken. The whole notion of a state is to impose order and allow interacton within set confines. [/
As such there needs to be an enforcement arm of the state namely the police.

Not a state without a police force.
A state without the right to be protected by that police.

For example, the police enforces peace in public but does not protect anyone's house from burglars. ("why am I supposed to pay for my neighbours security?")

Its absurd to suggest any state would exist where rape and murder was ignored by the government, as that would in effect be anarchy.

Just how naive are you? Those states exist right now... Just look to the middle east or something. It's perfectly possible for a state to exist while ignoring abuse of it's citizens.

Clearly people can pay for their own doctors and that's not necessary to have a functioning state. Your entire comparison is absurd.
No the state doesn't have an obligation to prevent you from getting a cold. As I said you're daft if you can't grasp a basic distinction between negative and positive rights. There aren't "two sides to every coin", this is a case of "I could call your aunt your uncle but it wouldn't mean she had a set of testicles." They're two seperate things, its simply ignorant to insist there is no difference.

So who's all 'ad hominem' now?
I explained why the concept of 'positive' and 'negative' rights is fallacious. If you don't understand, here's a mental excersize for you.

A man is attacked by a wild animal.
Is his right not to be attacked by a wild animal a 'positive' or a 'negative' one?

In the end, I think you proven that it's not in the interest of anyone who isn't independently wealthy to vote for a libertarian party.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

My thought on this: politicians that loudly argue against public healthcare are likely not going to be good at implementing and running it.
In the same way it's not worth to put puritans in charge of sexual education or vegetarians in charge of making steaks.:)
(I know it's easier to say 'elect good politicans for the job' than to do it, though.)

[Methos]

No, you didn't say 'the logical extension of his arguement is Communism'.
If that's what you meant then I could equally say that your arguement is for Fascism, capitalism, hell..I could even argue it back around to Communism again.
You are simply using immotive words to try and score a point, especially when you are speaking to a Polish National and then you are wondering why you are getting the reaction that you are.

I certainly implied that the logical extension of his argument is communism given that I went on to note that you could say all the same things he's saying about health care but with poor people and food. I've yet to see anyone say anything that disputes Communism being the logical extrapolation of Celestial Goblin's argument.

[Hunter]

Not a state without a police force.
A state without the right to be protected by that police.

You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

[Jefepato]

My thought on this: politicians that loudly argue against public healthcare are likely not going to be good at implementing and running it.
In the same way it's not worth to put puritans in charge of sexual education or vegetarians in charge of making steaks.:)
(I know it's easier to say 'elect good politicans for the job' than to do it, though.)

And you think other politicians would be good at implementing it?

You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

Residents of Washington D.C. seem to be missing quite a lot of basic rights, lately.

[Methos]

To me your argument seems to boil down to:
1) right to the fruits of your labor is absolute
2) because it is

1) People are free
2) to be free people must own themselves
3) if you own yourself, therefore you must own your actions
4) that which derives from actions which you own is your property

That's the argument.

I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. I'm worked or borrowed to get everything I've had. I don't see why anyone else expects a free ride.

Again, the existance of law and order is necessitated by any state. There must be an enforcement mechanism to enforce that order. You're wandering off onto illogical tangents again.

The effectiveness of the police force really isn't an issue. Its not 'legal' to murder and rape in the middle east either - their justice system does seem perverse in some of its outcomes but that's neither here nor there.

You're defiance of a well established definition and distinction without any basis beyond your desire to attempt to falsely misrepresent the nature of services is generally absurd but I've already said that. If you can't deal with the terms of reference in an argument you really shouldn't be in it.

[Elvi]

I certainly implied that the logical extension of his argument is communism given that I went on to note that you could say all the same things he's saying about health care but with poor people and food. I've yet to see anyone say anything that disputes Communism being the logical extrapolation of Celestial Goblin's argument.

OK then, if that is the case, how about this?
Great Britain is a welfare state, we have a 'poverty level', where it is deemed that no-one should fall below that level.
If they do, (for whatever reason), then they are given money, (in several different ways), by the British Government.
We have unemployement benefit.
We have state Pensions.
We have sickness benefit.
We have disability benefits.
We have child benefit.

The children of those on low income, recieve free baby milk (an infact anyone can buy it at the health clinic at a cheaper price, no matter what income they have) and when the children go to school they recieve free school meals.

The elderly, ALL elderly, recieve a yearly heating allowance to ensure that they are able to keep themselves warm during the winter.

Piped water is NOT allowed to be turned off because of none payment of bills and legislation has made it extremely hard for both gas and electrical supplies to be disconnected.

We have the NHS, everyone is entitled to see a doctor/specialist/other medical practitioner at no charge. The only thing that we have to pay for, is prescription medication, (at a heavily susbsidised amount).
However, those under 16, pregnant, over 60, suffering certain specified illnesses or cannot afford to pay, also get them for free.

In this way, it ensures (or attempts to ensure), that no-one goes hungry, thirsty, unclothed, or cold and that they recieve health care as and when they need it.

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

*wanders off shaking her head*

[Celestial Goblin]

1) People are free
2) to be free people must own themselves
3) if you own yourself, therefore you must own your actions
4) that which derives from actions which you own is your property

That's the argument.

Point 4 is what I disagree with and see no basis to respect.

I'm not rich, I'm not poor either. I'm worked or borrowed to get everything I've had. I don't see why anyone else expects a free ride.

Including your entire education, begining at elementary school?
But if it would be possible for everyone to earn what you did trough honest work alone, that would definitely eliminate the need for the policies that you call 'socialist'.

Again, the existance of law and order is necessitated by any state. There must be an enforcement mechanism to enforce that order. You're wandering off onto illogical tangents again.

But definitions of 'law and order' differ from state to state.
In some places, the law says you need to give up some income to save someone's life.
In some places, the law could say that defending yourself from, say, assault is your own responsibility.

The effectiveness of the police force really isn't an issue. Its not 'legal' to murder and rape in the middle east either - their justice system does seem perverse in some of its outcomes but that's neither here nor there.

Huh huh, honour killings, huh huh, stoning, huh huh, spousal rape...
Also, a law not enforced is not a law. I hope you know that.

You're defiance of a well established definition and distinction without any basis beyond your desire to attempt to falsely misrepresent the nature of services is generally absurd but I've already said that. If you can't deal with the terms of reference in an argument you really shouldn't be in it.

I suppose that if the difference between 'positive' and 'negative' rights the way you describe them would be so obvious and clear-cut, you'd have no problem proving that, instead of refusing to adress the point...

And you think other politicians would be good at implementing it?

You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Better than Bush&co? I think they might.
Good enough to make Canada/Euro/whatever red with envy? Probably not.

Quote from: Hunter on Today at 10:01:29 pm
You do realize that in Washington D.C. you have no right to the services of the police, correct?

Residents of Washington D.C. seem to be missing quite a lot of basic rights, lately.

I'm almost afraid to ask...

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

Worse, you're all slaves.

[Elvi]

My problem with the European Health Care Model is frankly its a matter of size of the nations involved. The United States is huge with a very eclectic population and a $10+ trillion national debt in other words the Federal Government in broke and in debt. We can't afford to even think about such large scale reforms at the Federal government level even if they were allowed under the Constitution to do so. Counties and States might be able to act on this they are traditionally in our country better at adapting and developing new programs efficiently. And some states are acting to set-up some Health Care reforms.

Lets be blunt most of your nations such as England are just financially far better off, smaller in population and have frankly more efficient governments. In our country the smaller the government and more local the more efficient it usually gets a township or city is better than a county a county better than a state and a state far better than the Federal Government.

As for what the Federal Government can do just cutting down regulations not absolutely necessary for public health would be a start such as the FDA just seeing if a drug is safe not whether it works or is better than an existing drug. The former I would argue may be justified the latter is a private matter between doctors and their patients to determine if a drug should be used or not. I could point out others such as making it hard for a foreign properly trained doctor from practicing primary care in the United States I know three Cuban doctors that can't practice in the US and are perfectly well trained for general care. They may have a poor country but do have good medical schools. That is an outrage when we are desperate for primary care physicians in this country. Little things like this could ease pressures and not cost a dime.

I know that this is going to probably stun both yourself and many others, but I agree with you or almost every point Ruby.
(Though it's not just 'England', it's the Untied Kingdom, or Great Britain)

I really, really want to dislike the concept of universal health care.  But then, it makes sense for more or less exactly the same broad reasons that public education makes sense, and I certainly don't think public education is a bad idea.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

Nothing is ever perfect, it certainly isn't in this country, but the one good thing is that the basics are there and when that is the case, then things can be improved.

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

(Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X)[/color]

Note the lines that is bold.   How come most capitalists conveniently over look this or ignore such.

A precurser to the British Welfare state.
"Saturday Funds"
Set up by and in communities to try and keep their communities healthy and cared for.

Quote from: Celestial Goblin  on Today at 02:40:14am

Worse, you're all slaves.

Yup.....

[kongming]

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

I think my ex put it best, being sarcastic of course:
"Sneaky communists, disguising themselves as humanitarians and spreading their propaganda as 'compassion'"

In Mozilla Firefox, you keep tabs in your browser. But in Sovjet Russia, browser keeps tabs on YOU!

[RubySlippers]

Checks to see if the End of the World is Nigh' at Elvi's comment...

:o

;)

Well I'll defend the U.K. in they are not a communist state but a representative parlimentary multi-party system that so happens to have a very nice health care system. I was in the country when my mother broke her leg and she did get excellent and mostly free care, the drugs were all she had to pay for.

In our nation the states are far better off doing it themselves and they are to some degree. If a state comes up with a solid program others will and should copy it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Maybe this is a little late, but I just had a curiousity.  Why isn't Healthcare as important as the police force or the fire department?  I understand the police force keeps the laws of a country enforced and the fire department keeps an area from being destroyed.  Yet Healthcare keeps a populace healthy and working.  People that work produce money that the government then uses to fund its interests.  Healthy people work and so produce revenue and so are vital to the function of society.

I suppose someone can say, people who work have access to healthcare.  Yet low wage jobs do not provide for healthcare in many instances  Things like grocery store clerks, sandwhich artists, certified nursing assistants and other lower wage jobs do not have that option.  Since the population of people without healthcare does not align itself closely with our unemployment rate, I'd use that for evidence.  There is also the case of employed people with healthcare insurance not being able to afford their healthcare.  Then there are companies that have trouble supplying their workers with healthcare insurance while still staying competitive.  Course they could drop those benefits and hire immigrants who will work without them or maybe outsource their labor.  Dunno if that will be healthy for that nation's economy.

Regular checkups with a doctor can also help prevent further illness and poor health conditions.  This helps prevent the person from being sick for longer and thus not being productive.  Also helps the person live a longer and more productive life so that they pay more money into the system.  Then regular visits for pregnant mothers and children also prevent further complications that may (anyone who is handicap please don't take offense) result in a less productive citizen. 

Taking it logically, citizens are the commodity of a society.  If they are commodities then it is in a nation (or state's) best interest to preserve and take care of their commodity.  People pay into the system and get out of it, no matter their income.  The wealthy in this country do not stand atop a mountain they have climbed, but rather atop a mound of people that support them.  While their individual effort gained them their spot, it is the work of people beneath them and around them that maintain this infrastructure.  An infrastructure that has allowed them their vaulted position.

So, to me, healthcare is a vital part of a society.   

[RubySlippers]

I tend to agree it is as important for those very reasons. But I will support the same level of government involvement for health care programs. In the United States for the most part the major levels of police and fire department services are locally run in my county each city and township generally provides its own fire department and police department. There is a county level Sheriffs office and state highway patrol offices but they are more secondary to the Saint Petersburg Police or the Largo Police or the Clearwater Police each with its own offices. The Fire Services are also for the main restricted to the city and towns a few lease out to unincorporated areas.

So I would state if they are to be treated the same then the counties and cities/townships should provide the health care program maybe with the state having some oversight into the professional licensing and areas it is better suited to handle.

Let me use an example of the problem the Europeans might understand. Lets say the EU was twice as large with some poorer nations and others larger like states are here and you all wanted ONE EU health care plan covering all these nations. How easy would that be to have the U.K. and lets say Poland and France and Greece all agree to give up their ways of offering it for one plan. Its the same problem here in the United States. We have fifty nations (states) all who loath Federal mandates on them within them maybe fifty counties all loath to take state mandates and within them maybe ten cities and townships who are also fairly rugged individualistic minded all having to agree. Its easy for the U.K. and France alone to have a plan they have smaller populations, the plans are widely supported and even with flaws here and there meet their needs. In a EU wide plan they would have to give up some of their rights and sovereignty to a huge impersonal Federal sort of health service I suspect that would make it likely impossible.

In the US the only recourse I can see is mostly city to county maybe with the state a bit involved sort of health care plan and that might not be that easy, California is meeting fierce opposition from special interests as they work on covering everyone. A Federal mandate like Hillary intends will never fly and if they try it will leave still many uninsured or underinsured as now and could be worst. You give a person a bare-bones plan they can't afford to use to to co-pays and deductibles it will leave them with no recourse in some states now offered such as the Charity Care Law in Florida.

[Celestial Goblin]

Provided minimum standarts and norms are set, there's nothing wrong in letting individual states be in charge of their own healthcare plans.
Of course without minimum standarts, a state could just decide not to have any healthcare and then send all of it's sick into a neighbouring state for treatment, so there needs to be a check to prevent that.
Another excpetion would probably be very rare and difficult to treat illnesses and conditions. Just like local police can call upon FBI and local fire department can call upon emergency services in case of a natural disaster, local doctors should not be expected to handle brain surgery or separating conjoined twins.
Of course that can also be handled by payments between the states or something.

[RubySlippers]

Whose norms?

Should a state be barred from sending a high cost patiant overseas for care at a private for-profit hospital if it would perhaps save a very large amount?

Should a state have to cover illegal immigrants?

Oregon tried to cover everyone on Medicaid that was uninsured several years ago they were sued for denying payments for some areas of care that you and I might call not practical such as fertility drugs, and for deciding some treatments weren't cost effective for the results.

Any Federal controls would be very unpopular if No Child Left Behind didn't make that clear, they can handle some things like making it easier for foreign trained doctors to get licensed in the United States and deal with regulations to some degree. But states and counties would have to be the main parties involved. I can tell you right now in Florida we are in a rather nasty but peaceful tax revolt the funding for a State program is not going to happen here, if the Federal Government mandates it it would be asking for blood from a rock.

[Celestial Goblin]

Whose norms?

I assume that's for the politicans to work out... I don't know how bad the situation is in America and what you can afford. Probably anything life saving would get priority, for example.

Should a state be barred from sending a high cost patiant overseas for care at a private for-profit hospital if it would perhaps save a very large amount?

Barred from something that saves money? No way...

Should a state have to cover illegal immigrants?

Quite a separate topic, though I imagine in life-threatening situations, I'm afraid there's no other choice... (unless we're back to 'how dare you expect human emotions from me' situation.)
Of course one can try to regain at least some of the money by making the illegals pay. Making those who employed the illegals pay for their healthcare could be a solution, perhaps?

Oregon tried to cover everyone on Medicaid that was uninsured several years ago they were sued for denying payments for some areas of care that you and I might call not practical such as fertility drugs, and for deciding some treatments weren't cost effective for the results.

That's why, again, you need politicians honestly interested in the system working in charge of drafting the law, so they won't leave holes in the system.

[RubySlippers]

Sorry as an American and well growing up in our system of government I have to do this to your comments...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

ahem....

Ok now I got that out of my system. The Federal Government has never created a program that hasn't been twisted and abused in ways never intended save the Postal Service, even the Federal Reserve has rather modest benefits. They have a Medicare Drug Program that is a joke, are paying more for Medicare than originally projected and the FDA now is a market force not just a branch to verify a drug is safe but rather making market decisions. You think any State will trust them. Not to mention the special interests will rule any discussion on this issue.

[Celestial Goblin]

If your politicians break everything they touch, you obviously need to elect better ones. The responsibility lies on the voters.

Or are you saying that there's some mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, no matter who gets elected? I don't really think that's true.

Truth be told, many of the concerns you raise are valid and there's no 'magic bullet' solution to them. But saying 'politicians, sue-happy people and special interest groups will spoil things for us so it's no use to try' is a cop-out.

So at a glance, doesn't any of the currently running and electable candidates have a good plan? If you'd be choosing a candidate solely based on their approach to healthcare, who would you choose?

[Jefepato]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

Yes their is, it is called lobbyists.  That prevents are elected officials from being competent administrators.   

Sorry as an American and well growing up in our system of government I have to do this to your comments...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

ahem....

Ok now I got that out of my system. The Federal Government has never created a program that hasn't been twisted and abused in ways never intended save the Postal Service, even the Federal Reserve has rather modest benefits. They have a Medicare Drug Program that is a joke, are paying more for Medicare than originally projected and the FDA now is a market force not just a branch to verify a drug is safe but rather making market decisions. You think any State will trust them. Not to mention the special interests will rule any discussion on this issue.

You never cease to amaze me.   If we had it your way.   North America would be balkanized.  Their be no union.  You be living in la la land if you thought the Union could survive with out a Federal government.     An Robert Heinlein's  vision in his science fiction novels, especially 'Friday' would come to pass.   

I mean who is going to maintain the interstates.  Surely the different state department of transportations.  But oh where is that money going to come from.  Hmmm I guess the states are going to have raise taxes.  Because no more Federal money for such,  no federal government.   Oh I know, we can have another lotto and instead of just river boat casinos.  We can  have puddle casinos.   

You want health care, to be in the states hands.  Hmmm let see, when the Floridian has to pay a state income tax.  Because their burden with the overwhelming  abundance of old people on fixed income.   I sure bet they will be happy that the states are handling it.   

[Humble Scribe]

I'm also intrigued by Ruby's idea that the EU is better-off financially than the US. Look at some GDP per capita figures. At Purchasing Power Parity (ie taking into account not just exchange rates but also the fact that things cost different amounts in different countries) the figures are:
US: $46,000
EU: $32,900.
In other words, you earn, on average, and as a nation, 30% more than us. Don't tell me that you're too poor to afford universal healthcare. Yes, Ruby, there are disparities in wealth across the US. Believe it or not, there are quite large disparities in wealth even across a small country like the UK. The GDP per capita for London is about twice that of Wales.
There are no insuperable barriers to do with electoral systems, lobbyists, etc, it's just a question of how you decide to set national priorities. And the truth is that there are simply enough people who think like Methos who don't want it to happen.

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

That's true of every country, Jefe. Or at least, that perception is shared in every country I've ever visited. I suspect that the truth is that *most* of our (I mean yours and mine both, not just 'ours' as in UK) politicians are actually a lot more moral than we give them credit for. And as for competence... Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were regarded as competently-run organisations until a very short while ago. Enron was seen as a model of the New Paradigm, until it turned out to be a fraud on an unimaginable scale. We focus on government's screw-ups, but that's because the media spotlight is (quite rightly) on them. Every organisation screws up from time to time. Just that some get away with it more because they aren't held to account in a way our politicians ... usually... are.

[National Acrobat]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

The reality is, those people know they can't change the system, so they don't run for the office. In the odd event that one actually does, and gets elected, they learn very quickly as a noobie that if they want to make any headway, they have to play the games in Washington to get anything done.

[Celestial Goblin]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

Yes their is, it is called lobbyists.  That prevents are elected officials from being competent administrators.   

The reality is, those people know they can't change the system, so they don't run for the office. In the odd event that one actually does, and gets elected, they learn very quickly as a noobie that if they want to make any headway, they have to play the games in Washington to get anything done.

This is somewheat tangentially related to the topic, but I have to say those are true.
Lobbyists and influential political 'clans' are bad news for democracy in every part of the world. *sigh*

[RubySlippers]

I'm also intrigued by Ruby's idea that the EU is better-off financially than the US. Look at some GDP per capita figures. At Purchasing Power Parity (ie taking into account not just exchange rates but also the fact that things cost different amounts in different countries) the figures are:
US: $46,000
EU: $32,900.
In other words, you earn, on average, and as a nation, 30% more than us. Don't tell me that you're too poor to afford universal healthcare. Yes, Ruby, there are disparities in wealth across the US. Believe it or not, there are quite large disparities in wealth even across a small country like the UK. The GDP per capita for London is about twice that of Wales.
There are no insuperable barriers to do with electoral systems, lobbyists, etc, it's just a question of how you decide to set national priorities. And the truth is that there are simply enough people who think like Methos who don't want it to happen.

That's true of every country, Jefe. Or at least, that perception is shared in every country I've ever visited. I suspect that the truth is that *most* of our (I mean yours and mine both, not just 'ours' as in UK) politicians are actually a lot more moral than we give them credit for. And as for competence... Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were regarded as competently-run organisations until a very short while ago. Enron was seen as a model of the New Paradigm, until it turned out to be a fraud on an unimaginable scale. We focus on government's screw-ups, but that's because the media spotlight is (quite rightly) on them. Every organisation screws up from time to time. Just that some get away with it more because they aren't held to account in a way our politicians ... usually... are.

Proof of we are a poorer nation than you think...

www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Lets see we have a huge national debt, are spending more than we are taking in and each American owes the government de fact over $30,000 each that is every adult man and woman and every child in rough numbers.

Lets see if I was spending more than I was taking in with a huge debt I would not be rich would I?

In fact I would be poor maybe not on paper but in fact the United States is a poorer nation and that doesn't take into account expected rises in obligated social programs for retirees and the Iraq war. And people wonder why I support the Libertarian Party they are at least against this outrageous management of Federal affairs.

Maybe if we get the government chopped down to size and lower everyones taxes there may be money for many reforms and market changes to Health Care. As it is unless half the incumbants get booted out one year the politicians will be sitting pretty as things are going. Maybe this will scare you overseas and it scares me but the Federal Government collapsing may be the best thing that could happen. I'll be honest I feel no more moral obligations to support the Federal Government as a citizen, I may have on paper a legal one but its no longer in my mind a legal Constitutional government.

[kongming]

I imagine that if the government set less money on fire by launching an ineffective war on drugs, and by randomly invading less nations, they'd have a lot more money to play with (or would at least be in a much smaller debt). Bush has flushed trillions of dollars down the toilet on these failures, and a fraction of that would have been able to cover a health care system.

[Hunter]

I imagine that if the government set less money on fire by launching an ineffective war on drugs, and by randomly invading less nations, they'd have a lot more money to play with (or would at least be in a much smaller debt). Bush has flushed trillions of dollars down the toilet on these failures, and a fraction of that would have been able to cover a health care system.

Yeah...next time you think that go back and look at the 9/11 footage.

That's what results from an administration more interested in socialism than national defense.


And what about China?  China has the world's largest slave labor force (in the billions last I heard).  Yet after close to 30 years of embargos, NOTHING CHANGED.  In fact by reopening trade relations with China, the Clinton Administration showed defacto approval for the practice.

Don't all those people "deserve" and "have" the same rights as everyone else?

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Yeah...next time you think that go back and look at the 9/11 footage.

That's what results from an administration more interested in socialism than national defense.


And what about China?  China has the world's largest slave labor force (in the billions last I heard).  Yet after close to 30 years of embargos, NOTHING CHANGED.  In fact by reopening trade relations with China, the Clinton Administration showed defacto approval for the practice.

Don't all those people "deserve" and "have" the same rights as everyone else?

Boy are you deluded.  Hunter are you really Ann Coulter.   Takes a quick peek to see.  Especially with your so called selected revisionist history. 

[Hunter]

Boy are you deluded.  Hunter are you really Ann Coulter.   Takes a quick peek to see.  Especially with your so called selected revisionist history. 

Okay then.  China doesn't use slave labor.  I'm deluded.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Okay then.  China doesn't use slave labor.  I'm deluded.

You automatically throw all the woes onto the democratic President.   Even when saying the root of the problem goes back thirty years.  Back to when President Nixon first  reopen relations with China, I guess your referencing. 

An the first thing out in response is go check 9/11 tapes.  Anything that has to do with military cutting and your perception on that socialism has to be to the extreme.  Their is such a thing as not black and white.  That we live in a world of shades.   That we can find the common ground to help all the people and not the ones privilege.  While at the same time, find the means to have a strong defense.   

And back to your so called opening trade with China. It could never had happen.  If we didn't have a republican congress in at the time whole heartily chomping at the bit with greed.  Oh thats right we don't consider that.   Of course the standard history review of the past five years.  By like minded people.  Will be the reason why President Bush could not get anything done was because he was hampered by a democratic congress.   Yet go back 10 years and the congress is nicely forgotten in regards to anything that has happened.   

[Humble Scribe]

9/11 was caused by socialism? Who knew...

[Elvi]

An interesting theory both on 'socilaism' and the chinese slaves.
(Almost as good as previous claims that anyone who took the welfare of their people seriously were communists)

If it weren't for the fact that it would be taking this topic way off the tracks, I would ask Hunter to back up his claims with details?

Maybe we could ask him to start a new thread and back them up there....

[Celestial Goblin]

China does use slave labor in the form of prisoner labor. They also harvest executed prisoners for organs which they later sell and often death sentences coincide with a need for more organs for sale.

OTOH, if someone should be casting the first stone on those who mistreat prisoners, it probably shouldn't be USA, but that's a different topic. Someone already mentioned the 'war on drugs' which is just a tip of the unconstitutional and anti-freedom iceberg from what I read.

But what is really important is that two wrongs do not make a right. Having Chinese abuse people does not give other countries a moral right to do the same. If one realizes they're powerless to stop the abuse in China, it's still worth to fight the good fight at home.
And as sad as I am to admit it, there's no 'magic bullet' solution to China. Blocking them off all interaction and embargo-ing them to death will not fix anything. It's no more moral than brown-nosing to the communist party dignitaries.
Trading with them *and* exerting pressure is a workable option, but it takes time.

As for 9/11 being caused by not enough military(or did Hunter mean security) spending?
I really doubt so, because 9/11 attacks were not ones that could be stopped by military force or counter-intelligence. No one could predict such an atrocity and it's suicidal character only shows how helpless the Talibs felt against USA security.

(now, the fact that someone might have guessed that civilian airplanes can be used for suicide attacks is a differet matter. but such 'guesses' can't be bought with money. I mean, the computer game SimCity had this, but no one assumed it will happen for real...)

[Elvi]

China does use slave labor in the form of prisoner labor. They also harvest executed prisoners for organs which they later sell and often death sentences coincide with a need for more organs for sale.

In which case Celestial, we in the UK use slave labour, we make prisoners work too.
As for the organ harvesting, well yes, there does seem to be a few too many 'coincidences', but I have not seen anything that actually proves that they do this 'to order'.

However, yet again, we are wandering way....WAY off topic

[Celestial Goblin]

I wish I'd have good links on hand about the details of the organ harvesting bussines, but I read about it in a few (trustworthy) newspapers and don't know a good internet source. I don't think there's many people outside Chinese political circles denying it takes place, though.

As for using prisoner labor, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Many countries offer the prisoners a choice to reduce their sentence by working and this is a part of resocialization. Prisons will also have the inmates cook, clean and do all kinds of jobs around themselves for obvious reasons.

Now, if UK forces prisoners to work in order to make money on them, that's quite dreadful, but I'm suprised to hear it's the case...

(true, it's off-topic, we only touched China when discussing military spending... and even that's not related...)