Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[taks]

Government takes money from you --------> Government funds defense (at all levels: police, military, etc)

Government takes money from you --------> Government funds health care

i should point out here that overall, this argument has little to do with the government taking money from you, it's how they do it and what they use it for.

 

the primary responsibility of the government in a capitalist society is to protect its citizens' rights. that requires military, police, fire, other protection services. whithout these things you have anarchy, which, as with other ideal systems, cannot work in reality. while you will (and should) have to pay one way or another, it is not a contradiction because you are paying for yourself, not everyone else, i.e., it does not result in a redistribution of wealth nor do you sacrifice your individual rights.

 

imo this is nothing but greed and lazyness voting for freebies and pretending future generations won't be paying through crushing inflation and other disasters

not everyone that thinks such things are groovy do so out of laziness. certainly al gore is not lazy, nor barack obama. for some it is greed, for some it is power, for others (the majority) they simply cannot fathom that anybody would have a different set of moral values than they do. these people think it is "the right thing to do," therefore, so must you - you are immoral, and narrowminded* for believing differently.

 

hehe, the best line i've heard recently came from george reisman: the right to life does not imply the right to force someone else to keep you alive.

 

taks

 

*i do not think that means what some in here think it means.

[Maria Caliban]

I get the feeling that Americans often confuse solidarity with a form of communism.

 

In casual conversation, communism and socialism mean anything that's not laissez-faire capitalism among private interests.

 

Edit: To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This hasn't raised anyone's income tax because most of the money exists in the form of national debt. Right China, Japan, and Persian Gulf oil exporters are the three top foreign holders of U.S. debt.

 

Anyone who says that the war hasn't raised their taxes and so is fine is being fairly short sighted.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Lare Kikkeli]

lol @ the americans who'd rather pay more for just their own health care than the same amount or less for their and their neighbours health care.

 

you pay more per capita for health care than any other western country, and you put it in the hands of greedy insurance companies who hold the right to terminate your health care if you get too sick. how stupid can you be?

 

also i love how monte carlo is against all other forms of moderate socialism (reasonable unemployment benefits, public housing, free education) except universal health care BECAUSE UHC saved his son. i wonder how he'd feel about the rest if he were in a postition to either starve or be homeless without them? or if his precious son would need them in the future...

 

thats whats wrong with all these neocon ****, they only think of themselves but the minute they lose their fortunes due to some unforeseen circumstance they start crying for the big brother to bail them out (see: monte carlo, wall street...)

 

oh and taks and whoever it was who was crying about the 13% increase in taxes, guess what, universal health care would mean that your medical bills and insurance costs would eventually go down, thus saving you money in the long term.

[alanschu]

Government takes money from you --------> Government funds defense (at all levels: police, military, etc)

Government takes money from you --------> Government funds health care

 

Now, I personally have never relied on my police service to investigate a crime for me. There are a lot of people that do though. Is it not analogous to the health care criticisms to say that they are benefiting off my dollar, whereas the system could just as easily be set up in a way that people pay the police themselves to investigate crimes?

 

Enjoyable polite society and anything one can consider 'their rights' within comes from rule and enforcement of law. You have most likely relied on it for every aspect of your life. Are we going to pretend their is not a gulf here being jumped in terms of necessity or benefit? It is just greed and entitlement being encouraged here, personal health is a personal responsibility. Breaking 100 is an achievement is not a right, further you don't get surguries and cancer meds because you had to eat McDonalds and smoke cigarettes everyday and so on...

 

The world is not here to be your opium den people, imo this is nothing but greed and lazyness voting for freebies and pretending future generations won't be paying through crushing inflation and other disasters. Its hard to find nicer or more charming ways to make these points and the topic is unmotivating. The perspective of entitlement is so thick.

 

 

How in any way does this answer my question? Breaking 100? Cancer meds? Surgeries and McDonald's?

 

It absolutely is NOT just greed and entitlement, because many people support universal health care despite not being people that USE it. The perspective of entitlement may be thick to you, but maybe that's just because you're the one that's thick?

 

At least Gifted understands that it's very much a social construct.

Edited September 26, 2009 by alanschu

[alanschu]

the primary responsibility of the government in a capitalist society is to protect its citizens' rights. that requires military, police, fire, other protection services. whithout these things you have anarchy, which, as with other ideal systems, cannot work in reality. while you will (and should) have to pay one way or another, it is not a contradiction because you are paying for yourself, not everyone else, i.e., it does not result in a redistribution of wealth nor do you sacrifice your individual rights.

 

Aren't the rights of people arbitrary? Who decides what rights people do or do not have?

 

If the constitution and Bill of Rights stated that someone has the right to something (anything, pick whatever you want), then doesn't that mean the responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens' rights?

[Lare Kikkeli]

how is supporting universal health care greedy, but not supporting it because you dont want to pay more taxes not? especially when in other countries with universal health care the cost per capita is less than in the states?

 

you fail at logic.

 

oh and its really funny how taks hides behind his ITS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION-argument. guess what taks, the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper, an agreement made hundreds of years ago. it's only valid as long as it's useful, and looking at the ****ed up state your country is in its obviously not working for you anymore. you're about as credible as the people who hold the ten commandments as some kind of unbreakable laws. or the quran i guess.

[ramza]

There's no point discussing this with americans. They have a different history and culture, that's all. As I have already said, there are some issues we will never manage to agree about.

[Walsingham]

There's no point discussing this with americans. They have a different history and culture, that's all. As I have already said, there are some issues we will never manage to agree about.

 

Well, that's the internet buggered.

[Theseus]

There's no point discussing this with americans. They have a different history and culture, that's all. As I have already said, there are some issues we will never manage to agree about.

Yes the United States culture is in a Lockean Rut where property is the main goal in society. And Liberty and freedom are specifically targeted to help acheive property (value). Its self interested philosophy. As for the argument against health care, it is to keep ones own property instead of adding to a national pool. Like Taks, they think of their personal liberty and not the common interest. THey they are thinking of liberty in the micro form. Their own indivudual rights above others individual rights.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Theseus

[Walsingham]

Can we at least agree that - in purely principled terms - there is nothing wrong with a system which unfairly gives to others if you yourself come out better than a system where no unfair benefits are given? And I'm not talking helathcare specifically. I mean anything. Like a milkshake thing, maybe, or a national porn service.

[213374U]

it's only valid as long as it's useful, and looking at the ****ed up state your country is in its obviously not working for you anymore.

lol wat

 

 

There's no point discussing this with americans. They have a different history and culture, that's all. As I have already said, there are some issues we will never manage to agree about.

I'm European. You're not convincing me for **** either.

[Walsingham]

Can I point out that the framers wouldn't have even considered healthcare because medicine was almost total balls at the time . They didn't consider a national space agency or airforce either. You still have them.

[213374U]

Can we at least agree that - in purely principled terms - there is nothing wrong with a system which unfairly gives to others if you yourself come out better than a system where no unfair benefits are given? And I'm not talking helathcare specifically. I mean anything. Like a milkshake thing, maybe, or a national porn service.

Such a setup rewards laziness and cheating, and those values aren't a very good thing to promote. Why work for it if I can get it for free? Because it's the right thing to do? Heh.

 

 

Can I point out that the framers wouldn't have even considered healthcare because medicine was almost total balls at the time . They didn't consider a national space agency or airforce either. You still have them.

You'd have to ask them directly to know what their stance is on the issue, wouldn't you?

 

State agencies exist because it's difficult for the individual to finance a trip to the moon or a carpet bombing campaign. Difficult, not necessarily impossible. But we're trying to be reasonable, right?

[Asol]

How in any way does this answer my question? Breaking 100? Cancer meds? Surgeries and McDonald's?

 

It absolutely is NOT just greed and entitlement, because many people support universal health care despite not being people that USE it. The perspective of entitlement may be thick to you, but maybe that's just because you're the one that's thick?

 

At least Gifted understands that it's very much a social construct.

 

How does it answer your question? The point is you framed an inappropriate comparison between providing rights in an ordered society and funding public health. The necessity and benefit can't even begin to compare and you also implied you didn't benefit from or use law enforcement services, and seemed to imply the constitution and other national frame work is completely arbitrary and healthcare would have been an ideal and a right if medicine existed then as it does in its current state... There is a big leap made there.

 

As far as the rest of your thing goes, yes it is exactly greed and entitlement. If for example I refinance(or extract my home equity) my home to put in a pool or whatever bells and whistles I can weasel out of the bank, does it matter if I say these things are for my guests to make me a better host? That doesn't make it noble or any kind of a service to my children when I am creating nothing for them but debt they didn't ask for and can't avoid. I may be thick but not thick enough to jump through hoops and cheer for Obama to buy a unicorn with tax dollars like you people. The only reason you have the gusto for it is that you expect it to cost you peanuts on an individual level.

 

'At least' Gifted understands working to meet his own needs which is nothing to sneeze at by some of you. A misconception on some minor maths gives you no ground to look down on his opinions whatsoever. At least he is responsible, as far as I am concerned in present economic, financial and environmental conditions responsibility is the only sign of intelligence.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Asol

[alanschu]

Such a setup rewards laziness and cheating, and those values aren't a very good thing to promote. Why work for it if I can get it for free? Because it's the right thing to do? Heh.

 

The thing about this is that people in both camps have this tendency of focusing on the bad.

 

With state provided mechanisms:

Yes you WILL get people that 'take advantage' of the system* - But you'll also have people that will benefit

 

With more lassiez-faire mechanisms:

You will get people that find themselves in **** situations due to **** luck - But you won't be providing free handouts to those that would take advantage

 

 

 

*I find this line of thinking more applicable for things like welfare as opposed to health care though. Assuming Health Care doesn't provide you with superfluous and medically unnecessary services like plastic surgery, how exactly does one "take advantage" of the health care system? In terms of total cost, are "pointless" checkups that common of an occurrence? Even then, a pointless checkup isn't what's expensive, nor does it take a lot of time. But it's not like people are off accepting brain surgeries simply because the state is willing to foot the bill for it.

 

I know my roommate (very capitalist) says he doesn't care for the public health care because in his mind people will waste money going for checkups for frivolous and unnecessary things, but I'm more divided about the issue because the few papers I have read, as well as the one (and only one) course I took about the sociology of health and illness, indicate that these things are not very expensive.

 

However, I do know that catching an ailment as early as possible can drastically reduce the total cost required to treat the individual. One common (I don't know the validity) criticism of free market health care is that people have an incentive NOT to see doctors unless they are certain of an illness.

 

However, in both instances, I think humanity's general stubbornness to not go see doctors for whatever stupid, non-financial, reason they can think of is more prevalent

[alanschu]

How does it answer your question? The point is you framed an inappropriate comparison between providing rights in an ordered society and funding public health. The necessity and benefit can't even begin to compare and you also implied you didn't benefit from or use law enforcement services, and seemed to imply the constitution and other national frame work is completely arbitrary and healthcare would have been an ideal and a right if medicine existed then as it does in its current state... There is a big leap made there.

 

 

I know it's a big leap. I thought I was pretty transparent in stating that.

 

I didn't just imply that I don't benefit from law enforcement services. I said that I never needed them to investigate a crime for me. As it turns out, that's actually true.

 

If you felt I was implying that national healthcare would have been an idea and a right if medicine existed, then you failed miserably. Given the rest of your post, it does seem as though reading comprehension is something that you are sorely lacking.

 

Look closely at the post I responded to. Someone (Guard Dog) mentioned the constitution for why some services are provided. That is, they are provided because they are explicitly stated to be provided in the constitution. Unfortunately, you decided to be stupid about it, when I asked the question.

 

 

 

As far as the rest of your thing goes, yes it is exactly greed and entitlement. If for example I refinance(or extract my home equity) my home to put in a pool or whatever bells and whistles I can weasel out of the bank, does it matter if I say these things are for my guests to make me a better host? That doesn't make it noble or any kind of a service to my children when I am creating nothing for them but debt they didn't ask for and can't avoid. I may be thick but not thick enough to jump through hoops and cheer for Obama to buy a unicorn with tax dollars like you people. The only reason you have the gusto for it is that you expect it to cost you peanuts on an individual level.

 

"You people?" That's rich. You are indeed thick though. I'm not cheering for Obama either for the record, but as previously demonstrated, you struggle with reading comprehension. It's not greed, nor entitlement. What you are doing though, is display gross arrogance by assuming you know what other people's motivations are.

 

 

A misconception on some minor maths gives you no ground to look down on his opinions whatsoever

 

I don't look down on Gifted's opinions. I did state (along with other people) that his math was incorrect because, well, it was. At the same time, his math miscalculation also has him overestimating the cost, and hence, being even more against the idea. That's why it's brought up. I don't look down on Gifted (or anyone) for believing that a particular system of governance is what they prefer. You'll be hard pressed to find instances of me having anything more than debate with someone like Guard Dog (a strong Libertarian), sometimes against his point of view, sometimes in favour of his point of view. But hey, continue to make assumptions if that makes you feel better.

 

 

'At least' Gifted understands working to meet his own needs which is nothing to sneeze at by some of you.

 

Errr, I very much work to meet my own needs thank you very much. It's not like I neglected to pay the Alberta Healthcare Insurance premiums I needed to pay. It was nice that, when I was a student and not making much money, I qualified for subsidy with respect to my health care premiums.

 

Now that I am out of school, I'm busting my ass making money to pay for my school related debt (Heck, I'm at work right now, and I usually chill on the forum while waiting for stuff to download or builds to update). I was having a hard time finding work right out of school, but at no point did I ask the government to strike my student loans (I did contact my credit card company and ask for payment, not interest, relief so that I could go a few months without making a payment on my credit card). Now I have a job, one that doesn't particularly pay well as it is entry level, but it's with a company that I most definitely do want to work with. Outside of the essentials such as food, shelter, and transportation expenses (gas, insurance, etc), my expenses are pretty much zero. I do this so that I can aggressively pay off my debt.

 

I may buy the odd video game here or there, but I've pretty much suspended eating out, going out, and much of my social life for that matter. In part because I'm working 12 hour days and 8-16 hour weekends during crunch time, but also because I know I'm not really economically set up to spend much money on leisure activities at this time.

 

The only significant amount of debt I have ever incurred is direct response to getting a post-secondary education. Aside from that, I typically live by the idea of "If I can't afford it right now, I probably don't really need it."

 

I busted my ass to get a 3.7 GPA and my Bachelor of Science, Specialization in Computing Science, at the University of Alberta. Now that I'm out of school, my short-term goals are to stabilize my financial situation, and aggressively pay off all of my debt.

 

 

But yeah, I have no grasp of responsibility and just like to freeload off the system, and am a selfish bastard simply because I don't think Universal Health Care is bad. It also means that I definitely want people to take care of me in all aspects of my life, and means I want to just sit around and leech off the system.

Edited September 26, 2009 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

Can I point out that the framers wouldn't have even considered healthcare because medicine was almost total balls at the time . They didn't consider a national space agency or airforce either. You still have them.

That is not the case at all. There's nothing in the US constitution which authorizes the federal government for wealth redistribution of any kind whatsoever.

[Trenitay]

Isn't that what they're doing when they redistribute wealth to public schools?

[alanschu]

I doubt that redistributing wealth to public schools is in the US Constitution.

[Asol]

To above. You people refers to 'you people' being multiple people directly responding or seeming to, i am not going to reply-quote x people to death. Between the similar entitled attitudes of both no designation is/was necessary. Anyway to the rather strong play that there is an argument I am dis-servicing; Walsingham ask's taks what is so facist or irrational to pay for another person health care compared to their security etc. Gaurd Dog said the constitution requires federal participation in security but does not requrie and potentially is prohibitive to federal administration of health-care.

 

A reasonable paraphrase; this sounds like a cop out to say it is so because the constitution says so. Then inquire if (1)UHC would be supported by him/us/whoever now if it was written in, and (2) saying you have not used police specifically to address a crime for you, so is it not the same as a health care criticism to say they are benefiting off your dollar, whereas the system could just as easily be set up in a way that people pay the police themselves to investigate crimes? Is this not a fair paraphrase? Let me not be forced to pay for law coverage for others, essentially claiming the anti-UHC is playing the cheapskate take my ball and go home argument. Assuming its affordable and the money is there and everything, possibly its just that we just want to be stingy with it and let people suffer just because we are keen on it or something. The care is going to be good and available etc, and its going to be a money saving move.

 

To (1) potentially yes but is that what you really wanted? It is a pointless what if, we would be different people with different common values being encouraged, the other potential document would not be this constituition and would create a different society with different mores/people/government/etc. If one didn't have specific lessons and principles available in a household up bringing or whatever it would take a much longer in life to acquire it. Meh point, don't feel like I am dis-servicing you not to pursue that. Addictions and dependencies can take forever to throw off, and often never happen, if I was raised from the dole or owed it my life or livelihood it would take longer to get away from it.

 

To (2) What the constitution essentially gives us is a democratic republic, the frame work for the rule of law and so on. This is essentially the operating system for society, what individuals, government entities or corporations can or can't do as well as fairly much how they do it. The point of saying this that your point is real dubious that you never use investigations and others who do are benefiting unjustly from your tax buck, which is just the cheap jab at UHC opposition. The problem is that major thrust of law enforcement, security and police work is largely preventative in scope. A cop will pretend to give a **** about whether he gets your wallet back. Jail and economic repercussions deter the would be thief from swiping it, not that a cop is going to come get it. The point is you dollar is working persistently for you whether you have a court date, called 911 or canada equivalent or see a cop sleeping behind a billboard or something like that. On the other hand the preventative aspects of containing health costs and maintaining general health are the personal responsibilities of the individuals. Your Cop wallet fetch is not equable to Mr Robinson's heart surgury, not in cost, necessity or effects... or anything imo.

 

"To me it seems quite parallel. Help clear it up for me. With the exception of the constitution being explicit (I'm assuming so, I am not really all that familiar with the US constitution)."

 

Don't consider the parallel to be there. The law service in society fosters and corrects behaviours that create a productive environment, you are essentially paying to have transactional and communicative protocols the fair field in general. But is your job not to burn though cigarettes and cheeseburgers and perpetuate your person in reasonable health, should you incur the need of a heart surjury that is tragic but its not governments job to help you buy a product or service, when they have already done so much to enable you right? At least not in the general scope and character of the document in there is nothing that indicates any intent to equalize for behavior or (mis)fortune in anyway. In my interpretation it is 100% counter which is why I mentioned anti-health behaviour to begin with. You're straying from rights here to entitlements. The governments job is not to take care of you or to make me take care of your regardless of what I chose to do. This is the problem.

 

What if UHC had been in the constitution?

Might as well sew a wing to an aligator, it has no relationship to the rest of the work...

Edited September 27, 2009 by Asol

[Blarghagh]

It is just greed and entitlement being encouraged here, personal health is a personal responsibility. Breaking 100 is an achievement is not a right, further you don't get surguries and cancer meds because you had to eat McDonalds and smoke cigarettes everyday and so on...

 

I realize that I'm late replying to this, but I'm a little confused with this statement. What exactly are you saying here? That the people who are for UHC are the kind of people who "let themselves go", healthwise? Who by default actively try to keep their contribution to society to a minimum?

 

Please clarify.

[Theseus]

Asol arguments are, dare I say naive. According to him we shouldn't have a FDA or an EPA either. I could go on and on. We've already went over why the government should or shouldn't step in. In a large sense it depends on ones view of liberty. If you want your own liberty protected so you don't have to help pay. The other side of the argument for UHC is if you want to protect others liberty by aiding in a public option. Its a micro VS macro view.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Theseus

[alanschu]

To (1) potentially yes but is that what you really wanted? It is a pointless what if, we would be different people with different common values being encouraged, the other potential document would not be this constituition and would create a different society with different mores/people/government/etc.

 

Exactly. The reason why I didn't like the fallback onto the constitution as a defense for why the government should provide police services is that it is, at it's core, a set of rules decided upon by a bunch of people at a particular time. State that you feel the government should provide police services for a reason of actual merit (which you did), rather than saying "because the constitution says they should." As you acknowledge, the had the constitution been different, it probably would have resulted in a different society. If someone's reasoning for supporting the government doing something is simply because "the constitution says so," I consider that a fairly weak point, and doesn't do much more than to say that that person is a slave to the constitution. At least you actually gave an explanation for it.

 

 

The problem is that major thrust of law enforcement, security and police work is largely preventative in scope

 

So couldn't UHC be implemented in a way that makes it more preventative? My country (Canada) is already trying to do this because of the realization that UHC can be expensive. Ironically, one of the giant criticisms against UHC, is that apparently people will "take advantage" of the system. This would mean extra checkups, even when perhaps they aren't necessary. However, increased use of the medical care system will also mean more people finding conditions before they start to become prohibitively expensive.

 

 

The point is you dollar is working persistently for you whether you have a court date, called 911 or canada equivalent or see a cop sleeping behind a billboard or something like that.

 

My dollar is working persistently more for other people than it is for me though. Crime isn't evenly distributed. Nor is the application of law enforcement funding. Depending on who you ask, the deterrence of law enforcement is suspect as well. At the same time, the correlation between mental health and criminal behaviour is also there.

 

 

On the other hand the preventative aspects of containing health costs and maintaining general health are the personal responsibilities of the individuals

 

I'll agree. But at the same time, I'm at a stage right now where I really can't afford to miss work due to illness, and I especially can't avoid work because someone else is sick. I eat healthy and (usually... I have been bad lately) exercise to stay fit, but it doesn't make me immune to disease. I'm sure a lot of other people are in the same situation, and for that person that has the desire to NOT go on welfare (if available) to support their family, sometimes you can't be picky about making sure that you only work for an employer that is willing to provide you with the appropriate health benefits. I suppose you could make me pay for it directly, but I'm at the stage where I don't have much money beyond meeting my basic needs. Though thank goodness I am single, renting a room in my friend's house, and don't have any kids, because that means that the chances of a sudden financial emergency that can't be solved beyond "I won't pay for something leisurely today" is pretty low.

[alanschu]

As a general question, since I can see how this is an issue for other social services like welfare, how do people "take advantage" of a universal health care system?

[213374U]

As a general question, since I can see how this is an issue for other social services like welfare, how do people "take advantage" of a universal health care system?

Not directly, perhaps, assuming you don't get crap like sex change surgery and assisted reproduction therapy, which you do where I live. You don't get help for your cavities, though, or glasses if you need them.

 

Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things. So, you are getting the whole of society to pay for something you would have to shoulder on your own, getting perhaps a second house, a third car, or whatever, with what you're saving in premiums. And it doesn't matter if you make use of it or not - it needs to be there should you ever need it. The State is indirectly subsidizing your luxuries. That may be good from a consumption standpoint, but it's hardly fair.

 

Further, UHC promotes unhealthy living habits. Or at least, it makes no difference between the person that doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and keeps track of eating habits and the overweight, heavy-drinking, 2-pack-a-day smoker that goes nowhere without his car. Who is going to pay the bill when that person needs medical attention due to his unhealthy lifestyle? And does the person who makes an effort to be healthy get to pay less taxes?

 

Again, unfairness and dissolution of accountability.