Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Gorgon]

Yay, nice cheap shot.

 

 

Yeah that was a cheap shot, I got carried away I guess.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gorgon

[Arkan]

1) Who cant afford school K-12? Its free.

2) You do pay for fire departments in your State/city taxes.

3) The same Social Security you pay into with the expectation of getting your money back when you retire?

4) Both. Not only can we not affors to pay for 300+ million people I dont feel I should be forced to.

 

 

1. It's as free as #2 is. Your taxes pay for it.

2. Precisely

3. There is no guarantee. Hopefully it's there when you retire.

4. We can't afford to because there is no tax designated to pay for it. But you're forced to pay for education as well, even if you send your child to private school or have no children.

 

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

[Hurlshort]

Bleh, lets not bring up private schools. Ridiculous waste of money.

[taks]

why, because they work better? even charter schools work better on less money than the public sector waste that is educating our youth.

 

taks

[Arkan]

Those are silly arguments. Because, if you are struck by a medical emergency, you will receive care. In other words, if your house is on fire, the fire department will come put out the fire. However, you will receive better care if you have health insurance. If you have fire insurance, not only with the fire department put out the fire, but you'll probably have your home rebuilt.

 

Because, if you are struck by a medical emergency, you will receive care. In other words, your child will receive free education k through 12. However, you will receive better care if you have health insurance. If you provide for your child's education, you need not use public education. Instead, you can send your kids to private schools or augment their schooling with private tutors.

 

...And the argument that "well, you're okay with this, so why not this?" is the epitome of the slippery slope. Ha! And folks scoff at slippery slope arguments.

 

To be fair, however, my arguments are practical. I'm not implacable. If you convince me I'm wrong, I won't refuse to budge.

 

On point 2, parents are legally responsible for their children receiving a "suitable" education. They have no choice. And there is no guarantee that a child will receive better education at a private school. Plus, you're still paying for public school for everyone else.

 

You're right, though. It is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Some socialist principals are okay, but not all? (perhaps the two previous statements should be in reverse order, but oh well).

 

I know some like to use the police force angle, as well, but that's a little absurd. The police force is to maintain law and order, so that one really goes nowhere.

[Gfted1]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Maybe Im just a selfish SOB but I loathe the idea of my hard work paying for someone elses stuff. Where half or better of the monies I earned to take care of MY family are taken away from me without choice to pay for some other schlub? No thanks.

[Arkan]

I'm not calling for a tax increase, or that there should necessarily be UHC. It would be a major upheaval not only to the healthcare industry but the whole system altogether.

 

How else would it be financed? Thats why countries with socialist programs pay upwards of 60% taxes.

 

Maybe Im just a selfish SOB but I loathe the idea of my hard work paying for someone elses stuff. Where half or better of the monies I earned to take care of MY family are taken away from me without choice to pay for some other schlub? No thanks.

 

 

Your hard work is already paying for someone else's stuff.

[taks]

Maybe Im just a selfish SOB but I loathe the idea of my hard work paying for someone elses stuff.

particularly when you have a constitution that says you should not have to.

 

taks

[Moatilliatta]

1) Would people please stop referring to this as socialism/socialist? It is both wrong and unhelpful. America already has state funded services.

 

2) I support a nation having a basic universal healthcare, but has Obama (and the rest of the government) shown a level of statesmanship that can institute something like this without it being as problematic as the current system?

 

3) I'm pretty sure that 60% taxes are only us danes and the swedes. Possibly Belgium as well.

 

4) Universal healthcare haven't broken down yet but does face a sustainability problem that can make it problematic in the future.

 

@Taks & Gfted1

You're both already paying for other services used by other people.

 

Fire department, police do I need to go on?

 

The question is whether universal healthcare can be said to be a basic need/essential service like the other two.

[Gorgon]

You're right of course, the only people who would describe the European health care model as 'Socialist' are Americans. It's just that I have given up trying to insist on the distinction.

[taks]

1) Would people please stop referring to this as socialism/socialist? It is both wrong and unhelpful. America already has state funded services.

that doesn't make it any less socialist/collectivist/statist. newspeak doesn't change what is happening and if "being hurtful" is what it takes to wake people up, then that is what is necessary.

 

2) I support a nation having a basic universal healthcare, but has Obama (and the rest of the government) shown a level of statesmanship that can institute something like this without it being as problematic as the current system?

government in general can't, and won't, be able to do this. the current system is already marred by too much intervention, and now the geniuses in charge want to make it even more inefficient.

 

4) Universal healthcare haven't broken down yet but does face a sustainability problem that can make it problematic in the future.

it will get worse once the last reasonably free-market health system goes down (and i say reasonably only in the most sarcastic sense).

 

@Taks & Gfted1

You're both already paying for other services used by other people.

 

Fire department, police do I need to go on?

why not try a legitimate analogy, say, welfare, or medicaid. then ask yourself: does that make it right?

 

as for legitimacy, police and fire are both a) paid by local resources, not federal or even state (though some police is, but not all), b) paid through usage taxes (in general), which means you get what you pay for. government's job is to protect your rights and property, both of which fall under the purview of police and fire departments.

 

The question is whether universal healthcare can be said to be a basic need/essential service like the other two.

actually, the question is do you (in general) believe in individual rights that are inalienable? if not, then health care could be said to be a basic need. if you do believe in inalienable individual rights, then why would you ever agree to allow the government to steal from you with threat of force to provide for someone else?

 

taks

[taks]

You're right of course, the only people who would describe the European health care model as 'Socialist' are Americans. It's just that I have given up trying to insist on the distinction.

probably because you don't understand the distinction yourself. newspeak lives.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

Taks... I always like your posts about these things - it reminds me that it's real people behind those ideas and that humanizes my political opposition..

 

But I'm always so amazed at how utterly "evil" I (and people like me) would seem to you and your political likeminded friends (being a socialist) and how utterly "evil" my friends would probably view you (they would probably call you a greedy, cold hearted imperialist )..

 

But most of all.. I'm amazed that two very moral men can have such different opinions on such simple things.. It's really quite refreshing (and probably good in some sense).

[taks]

But I'm always so amazed at how utterly "evil" I (and people like me) would seem to you and your political likeminded friends (being a socialist) and how utterly "evil" my friends would probably view you (they would probably call you a greedy, cold hearted imperialist )..

i think the difference is that i don't find people like you evil. that anyone could find me evil, simply for thinking that people should be allowed (and required) to care for themselves is sad, actually. i find the system evil, and people that agree with it uninformed.

 

you've been raised your entire life being told you are required to sacrifice for others and you don't have any rights of your own (even though it may not be sold that way). i, on the other hand, was raised knowing that i have rights that cannot be taken away by any person, government, or government agent and i have a duty to fight for them. my country was founded on this principle, and it is the very reason it has been this successful.

 

taks

[Moatilliatta]

that doesn't make it any less socialist/collectivist/statist. newspeak doesn't change what is happening and if "being hurtful" is what it takes to wake people up, then that is what is necessary.

If you see capitalism as being a binary value of some/total state-control vs. no state-control then yes the entire world is run by confused socialists. Captialism and socialism doesn't make any sense unless you see it as a ideological standpoint of for or against private enterprise and that makes the entire western world capitalist.

 

government in general can't, and won't, be able to do this. the current system is already marred by too much intervention, and now the geniuses in charge want to make it even more inefficient.

Our system is more effecient than yours so yes it can. It is possible that you guys could make an even more effecient system by tweaking the current one or creating a new one based entirely on private ownership. I can't say since I'm haven't ever studied that.

 

it will get worse once the last reasonably free-market health system goes down (and i say reasonably only in the most sarcastic sense).

I agree which is why I said basic universal healthcare. Taking care of the least of us doesn't suddenly mean that the free market won't still be the greatest creator of wealth, happiness and equality known to man. Doesn't mean that it will sut our needs perfectly either.

 

why not try a legitimate analogy, say, welfare, or medicaid. then ask yourself: does that make it right?

 

as for legitimacy, police and fire are both a) paid by local resources, not federal or even state (though some police is, but not all), b) paid through usage taxes (in general), which means you get what you pay for. government's job is to protect your rights and property, both of which fall under the purview of police and fire departments.

 

The question is whether universal healthcare can be said to be a basic need/essential service like the other two.

actually, the question is do you (in general) believe in individual rights that are inalienable? if not, then health care could be said to be a basic need. if you do believe in inalienable individual rights, then why would you ever agree to allow the government to steal from you with threat of force to provide for someone else?

 

taks

I don't see how it matters whether is is your state or the federal government that takes your money. The basic gist of the system is that your state (whether state or federal) takes your money and spends it on someone that isn't you for the betterment of society as a whole. This goes for fire departments as well as univsersal healthcare, or do your firemen present a bill to you when they put out fires?

 

Shouldn't this discussion of capitalism vs. socialism and rights vs. ...something be in another thread? I doubt that universal healthcare would get much attention if we started on those other bigger discussions.

 

@Rosbjerg

You're probably not a socialist. Also the reason you would ever call Taks "evil", even jokingly, is because you haven't thought it through. We all have the same basis in Classical Liberalism.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The difference between police and universal healthcare is that everyone needs police protection, while UH only benefits those who can't or won't buy their own insurance. What's fascinating to me is that people in other countries care so much about US social programs, while US could care less what anyone else does.

[Moatilliatta]

1)How does a person need police protection more than universal healthcare? State run police only helps those that couldn't afford a private service.

 

2)We care about the U.S. because politics are interesting and the domestic policies of countries are important for everyone.

 

I regularly read about the domestic policies of various states through newspapers.

[Rosbjerg]

[1]i think the difference is that i don't find people like you evil. that anyone could find me evil, simply for thinking that people should be allowed (and required) to care for themselves is sad, actually. i find the system evil, and people that agree with it uninformed.

 

[2]you've been raised your entire life being told you are required to sacrifice for others and you don't have any rights of your own (even though it may not be sold that way). [3]i, on the other hand, was raised knowing that i have rights that cannot be taken away by any person, government, or government agent and i have a duty to fight for them. my country was founded on this principle, and it is the very reason it has been this successful.

 

taks

 

[1]I hoped the quotations marks would help, but don't worry - very few would think you are evil, they would however argue that you are wrong.. Like you would in their case. I was just exaggerating to get a point across..

 

[2] Actually I haven't.. my parents are conservatives and hold much the same principles as you, I've been raised to believe in personal ambition and selfmade luck etc etc.

 

But you forget (and I'm a little dissapointed that you do) that we hold the same principles, and that America certainly isn't the only place who values personal freedom... Our constitution gives us the same rights and privliges as you, the only difference is that we all try to help those who are having a hard time making their own luck.. This works for us and I'm very proud of it, but I have the utmost respect today (I know that wasn't the case a few years ago) for your system and beliefs.

 

I think the advantage to your system is that people are much more personally involved in their own fortunes and strive to a greater degree to succeded, while in our society things can become more stagnate.. On the flip side, people who fail in your system really fail, while their fall is somewhat shortened in ours.

 

[3] My goverment cannot take rights away from me either - and never have (you thought they could?) .. and not to be rude, but post 9/11 I have considerable freedom compared to you..

 

To round this up, I think you confuse taxes with liberty - I would arguee that you are not more free, or less free, based on the level of taxes you pay. But more so on the level of involvement and direct influence you have on the goverment.. and personal freedom to express your opinions no matter what they may be. In this regard my country is as free as yours.

 

edit:

@Rosbjerg

You're probably not a socialist. Also the reason you would ever call Taks "evil", even jokingly, is because you haven't thought it through. We all have the same basis in Classical Liberalism.

 

I didn't get my point across very well.. I'll admit that.. and I will be the first to admit that I probably have alot to learn about Liberalism. And in theory I'm not a socialist, but the word has really lost it's meaning these days (like fascist) so I still think I can claim the title on that merit (but you are right of course).

[taks]

If you see capitalism as being a binary value of some/total state-control vs. no state-control then yes the entire world is run by confused socialists.

no, but i think you actually need to look at the definitions of the two, and understand the role in government in each, and while you're at it, look up what inalienable rights are.

 

Captialism and socialism doesn't make any sense unless you see it as a ideological standpoint of for or against private enterprise and that makes the entire western world capitalist.

it is only partially so, handicapped by the myriad socialist programs that are in place.

 

Our system is more effecient than yours so yes it can.

not really, but none are as efficient as a capitalist system.

 

It is possible that you guys could make an even more effecient system by tweaking the current one or creating a new one based entirely on private ownership. I can't say since I'm haven't ever studied that.

private ownership is the way to go. your last sentence is part of the problem with the world: most haven't actually studied it yet they somehow feel comfortable criticizing it as if they had. maybe if the rest of the world was actually taught the various economic systems, it would be a better world.

 

I agree which is why I said basic universal healthcare. Taking care of the least of us doesn't suddenly mean that the free market won't still be the greatest creator of wealth, happiness and equality known to man. Doesn't mean that it will sut our needs perfectly either.

unfortunately, even basic UHC requires violation of rights. they aren't rights if some people are more equal than others, and some people have to pay more than others for the same services.

 

The question is whether universal healthcare can be said to be a basic need/essential service like the other two.

not if you look at the definition of the role of government in a free society: to protect your rights and property. nothing more, nothing less. police and fire are the two that fit that bill. furthermore, neither constitute an unequal distribution of wealth (in general) in the US. everyone pays based on what they get out of it. sort of like insurance. in the socialist UHC model, such a scheme is unaffordable.

 

I don't see how it matters whether is is your state or the federal government that takes your money. The basic gist of the system is that your state (whether state or federal) takes your money and spends it on someone that isn't you for the betterment of society as a whole. This goes for fire departments as well as univsersal healthcare, or do your firemen present a bill to you when they put out fires?

i already explained the difference between what you pay for and what you get - the examples are not even close to equivalent to UCH.

 

1. police/fire protection are necessary functions of government in a capitalist (or any) system.

2. it's not "state takes vs. federal government takes" it's "you voluntarily give to the state based on how much you use vs. federal government takes based on how much you earn."

3. for police/fire, everyone has the same life, yes, but not everyone has the same property to protect. those that have more, pay more, but also get more in return.

4. with UHC, everyone has the same life, again, but now everyone also gets the same treatment*, but they don't all pay the same.

 

Shouldn't this discussion of capitalism vs. socialism and rights vs. ...something be in another thread?

they are the same topic. UHC is about rights and necessarily about the utility of capitalist models vs. socialist models, i.e., which works better. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying we have anything close to a capitalist health care system here anyway. if we did, it would certainly be better than what we have.

 

taks

 

* the fact that socialist models are ultimately unsustainable and will offer sub-standard (and rationed) care is, quite frankly, only a side item to the rights issue, IMO.

[Gorgon]

What Taks means is a proportionally higher degree of redistribution, but that doesn't sound very catchy.

 

Government does not own the means of production, nor does it limit personal liberty, unless you include taxes in that definition, and we live in market driven economies. The term socialist is used more as derogative to describe this expectation that government will provide in certain situations.

 

To find countries that would actually describe themselves as socialist one would have to turn to Cuba or Venezuela.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gorgon

[Monte Carlo]

Somebody pondered why foreigners care about what happens in the USA when they couldn't care less what happens elsewhere? I don't actually believe this to be true, all I can say is that most Americans I've met here in the UK are astonished by the NHS. Car crash? Yep, that paramedic team and helo ride to Accident & Emergency was free (although the helo was paid for by charitable donations by evil capitalists), the blood transfusion was free, the after-care and physio are free. I try to explain that at-source taxation and National Insurance contributions are higher than in the US (but nowhere near as high as in Scandinava) but they don't really seem to take it in. I think they expected hospitals that you might have seen in Leningrad circa 1958 or something.

 

I enjoyed Tak's description of what personal liberty and freedom as an American means to him, and I in no way would belittle it or presume to disagree because how I live is better ('cos it ain't). I must comment how strange it still feels for me, even though I have lived and travelled in the US as much as I have, to hear it. I have robust libertarian views and am in no way a Statist, but my Achilles heel is healthcare. I can only say that our system isn't actually bad. As far as government-run systems go, that's really good. It's a system that has saved my son's life, what can I say? I'm also proud that I help fund a system that helps people that cannot help themselves. I know, my libertarian credentials are all bent out of shape now.

 

In other news, was somebody here dissing Ronald Reagan? Shame on you, most underrated US president ever. Negotiated the end of the USSR, rescued your collective asses from Jimmy Carter, reduced nuclear weapons and came up with lines like "what's the worst thing you can ever hear? Someone saying 'We're from the government and we're here to help.' Genius.

 

Cheers

MC

[Gorgon]

Yeah Ronnie won the standoff with the Ruskies, but that don't mean it wasn't one hell of a gamble to make with the fate of the world at stake.

[taks]

Government does not own the means of production, nor does it limit personal liberty, unless you include taxes in that

owning the means of production is only one aspect and, for the record, when the government stipulates how much one can charge for a service, it does at least control the means of production. a redistribution of wealth is a limit on personal liberty, no matter which newspeak language you use. you just don't consider property or a person's earnings "personal liberty."

 

and we live in market driven economies.

but the health care system is not market driven.

 

The term socialist is used more as derogative to describe this expectation that government will provide in certain situations.

no, it is used to to describe exactly what is being implemented: socialized health care, i.e., a socialist system.

 

To find countries that would actually describe themselves as socialist one would have to turn to Cuba or Venezuela.

i'm not talking about the entire economy, i'm talking about one aspect of it. your healthcare system is socialist and soon ours will be too (assuming they can get it voted through before we kick 'em all out of office).

 

taks

[taks]

I can only say that our system isn't actually bad.

but if it could be better, at less expense, and not violate your rights, wouldn't you prefer that? an insurance-based system with little government intervention would be extremely efficient and affordable for everyone and probably wouldn't take up 15% of our entire GDP (in the US). you can't even legally sue an HMO in the US, even if they violate your contract with them (an insurance policy is a contract). what does that do? it rewards bad behavior. now we're contemplating putting what everyone knows to be a corrupt, inept, and generally worthless government completely in charge of the whole system. ludicrous.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Quite simply we view health care as an essential service that should be available to all, and you do not.

 

By your definition the US has socialized fire departments. The point is when the **** hits the fan, help is available, be it your house burning down or discovering one of your kids has cancer. It's just a matter of degrees of differentiation.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gorgon