Socialized Health Care? [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Socialized Health Care?

Pages : 1 [2]

Lights

01-22-2008, 08:12 PM

After reading some of these posts, being an INTJ doesn't even feel special anymore :( I thought we were supposed to be above the general population in intellect. Socialization just does not work. Socialism does not work. USSR 4 life.

I'm actually very disappointed in most INTJs now. They know vast amounts of information, just not how to critically examine those ideas. All that knowledge, and no means of objectively analyzing and evaluating it. It is a horrendous waste of Ni.

I personally don't feel like arguing about the issue anymore since nobody has actually been able to dismiss any of my arguments. However, I suggest reading up on the industrial revolution if you really believe that privatization and the free market are the answer to everything. Of course, making people work 14 hour work days in unsafe conditions at mediocre pay and with the threat of never being able to get a job again if they complain, is what a perfect system is all about. :rolleyes:

evoviiigsr

01-22-2008, 08:50 PM

I'm actually very disappointed in most INTJs now. They know vast amounts of information, just not how to critically examine those ideas. All that knowledge, and no means of objectively analyzing and evaluating it. It is a horrendous waste of Ni.

I personally don't feel like arguing about the issue anymore since nobody has actually been able to dismiss any of my arguments. However, I suggest reading up on the industrial revolution if you really believe that privatization and the free market are the answer to everything. Of course, making people work 14 hour work days in unsafe conditions at mediocre pay and with the threat of never being able to get a job again if they complain, is what a perfect system is all about. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? I ripped your arguments into shreds, and you offered nothing but unrelated and misconstrued answers, or most of the time just random emoticons. What does the industrial revolution have to do with anything? That was a different lifestyle altogether, you can't compare apples and oranges. Your post does not even make sense. Unsafe working conditions and long work days? Damn, you are right! Letting supply and demand find optimal price and quantity does violate civil rights like that. You have no clue what privatization/the free market entail.

AgentofGaming

01-22-2008, 09:05 PM

Colette

01-23-2008, 02:00 AM

What are you talking about? I ripped your arguments into shreds, and you offered nothing but unrelated and misconstrued answers, or most of the time just random emoticons. What does the industrial revolution have to do with anything? That was a different lifestyle altogether, you can't compare apples and oranges. Your post does not even make sense. Unsafe working conditions and long work days? Damn, you are right! Letting supply and demand find optimal price and quantity does violate civil rights like that. You have no clue what privatization/the free market entail.

You appear to have missed his point entirely. In terms of critiquing capitalism and its effect on the health system (and other welfare systems) it is profoundlyrelevant to hark back to the industrial era, which was (essentially) the genesis of capitalism as we know and understand it today. Capitalist systems often do result in 'sweated labor' conditions; for the market (not the welfare of employees) dictates working conditions and pay rates. Conditions are driven by the exigencies of business development and a healthy profit margin, not by what may be good for an individual employee.

Those who fail to study history, or understand it, are destined to repeat its mistakes for evermore.

prometheus

01-23-2008, 11:03 AM

Those who fail to study history, or understand it, are destined to repeat its mistakes for evermore.

I couldn't agree more!

Here is just one example of a society that had guaranteed jobs, and all the other little "extras" some here really want.

How many of these tenets do you believe in and aren't you concerned by it?

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

stasis

01-23-2008, 11:52 AM

How many of these tenets do you believe in and aren't you concerned by it?

The Nazis were ardent socialists
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_law

Colette

01-23-2008, 11:59 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_law

:laugh:

prometheus

01-23-2008, 12:43 PM

:laugh:

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate........

So........... You're not going to answer this question either? I could have just as easily compared your beliefs to those of Stalin, and Mao, Pol Pot, but thought I'd spice it up a little.

To determine whether it is, or is not an appropriate comparison, just answer the question!

How many of these tenets do you NOT believe in?

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Lights

01-23-2008, 01:34 PM

So........... You're not going to answer this question either? I could have just as easily compared your beliefs to those of Stalin, and Mao, Pol Pot, but thought I'd spice it up a little.

To determine whether it is, or is not an appropriate comparison, just answer the question!

How many of these tenets do you NOT believe in?

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Yawn (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

prometheus

01-23-2008, 01:43 PM

I'll go ahead and guess once again Colette will not answer the question. And, proceed onto something I've been wanting to answer, but waiting till I cooled off enough to not look like this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are still seeing it as one way! Stuck on this 'owning' thing.
You give to me, I give to you. I give to you, you give to me. What's the difference, if you aren't stingy? You'd still have all you need, and so would everyone else.

This belief is precisely why all socialist societies fail.

Three years ago I used my superior intellect to foresee the end of the housing bubble in our resort town. I sold our property at a handsome profit, and bought property in a cheaper rural area and built a home without going into debt. During this same time most stooppid americans (which most are) were pulling out home equity for fancy cars, vacations, motorcycles, jewelry and living above their means. You are saying that now like the ants, who worked hard and planned ahead I should be penalized and forced to support the stupid, freeloading, grasshopper who made piss poor decisions. If this happens, there is no incentive for hard work, planning, or risks. You end up with the best in the society fleeing, to escape their thieving inferiors. Remember the walls around socialist countries. You are left with a collection of people who will "do just enough" and eventually they all starve. I strongly suggest you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. This book was written by one of the people who actually saw your socialist ideals in action and fled from the USSR to escape it.

prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Yawn (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I just noticed this was a link. This is easy enough to figure out. One of you answer the question. It is not a one point question but all the major points of socialism, your comparison to what you linked is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY wrong.

Lucid

01-23-2008, 01:56 PM

The Nazis were ardent socialists

This is a guilt by association argument and it's a logical fallacy. For the sake of your argument, please leave these out. :)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1OFMANY

01-23-2008, 01:59 PM

I guess nobody will answer it ?

prometheus

01-23-2008, 02:06 PM

I guess nobody will answer it ?

Seems that way.

The funny thing is they are using the same arguments, e.g. "The Free market doesn't work, because the greedy industrialist will make you work 30 hours a day for 5 cents." Where as we have discussed all aspects of the free market they choose only to address the rose colored "Look! free drugs and CATSCANS for everyone" while refusing to even look at the other effects of their visions.

1OFMANY

01-23-2008, 02:58 PM

Lights

01-23-2008, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lights
As far as our health care system, I know it is in bad shape, and I know some aspects of socializing it would be better, and some aspects of privatizing it would be better.

It needs to be fixed. That much is certain. Maybe we can compromise with an OPT-out and you buy your own.

My little guess work proposition is a mixture of liberal, conservative, and libertarian ideals that works on three levels.

1. Federal level government health care- private contributors donate to health care and get tax breaks from the government. In essence, they get to choose where their tax dollars are going. This federal money is then distributed between the states. This system is so the private sector doesn't get too much influence over health care. This is my liberal/conservative compromise, where the rich who pay the majority of the taxes get the benefit of choosing whether or not they contribute but are limited at the federal level at influencing the system.

2. State level government health care- each state can then choose how to distribute the federal money. Perhaps they will set it up through a charity, or maybe they will choose direct state government control. The state will then decide how much to tax its particular populace for it's health care. This is beneficial because it allows individuals in the state to effectively decide how much they are willing to be taxed for health care. Conservative and Libertarian states may have little or no taxes, whereas Liberal states may have substantially higher taxes. Of course the populace can move between the states and pick the health care package they like best, and that provides competition between states to provide for the best basic health care. This is my libertarian/liberal compromise where the individual has far more control over how they are taxed while providing for the best free market opportunity. However, everyone will have the benefit of the money contributed to the state by the federal government.

3. Private level health care- provides supplementary insurance (and full package insurance if need be) so that people can get higher quality health care. In states where they choose not to tax the populace, there will be more demand for private insurance. In states where they do tax and provide more state level insurance, the demand will be lower for private insurance. If state level care begins to become ineffective, then voters will move toward private care. If private care becomes too expensive, then voters will move toward acquiring more state care. This is my libertarian/conservative compromise.

So I set up three levels with my compromises to allow for a check and balances system between the federal, state, and private levels.

:thumbsup:

prometheus

01-23-2008, 03:07 PM

:thumbsup:

So how is this suppose to work for me. I've got my own health savings account, and I refuse to pay for other's health care?

I'm sure 10FMANY didn't just mean opting out of the care end, but also the forced finical support.

Lights

01-23-2008, 03:08 PM

So how is this suppose to work for me. I've got my own health savings account, and I refuse to pay for other's health care?

I'm sure 10FMANY didn't just mean opting out of the care end, but also the forced finical support.

I don't think they would really have to be. Individuals can choose whether or not to donate to the federal level which is then distributed to the states. Individuals then pay state taxes for the state ran care and elect officials who represent their belief of how much they should have to pay. And individuals can then choose to buy whatever other insurance isn't covered. It provides the most basic level health care, while making individuals responsible for obtaining more "luxury" coverage. Even people like prometheus would be fine because they could simply move to a state that didn't tax for health care. It's a system largely dictated by individual choice and it tests the tenets of each ideology. For example, if the rich decide they won't donate to health care, then it proves the faultiness of libertarianism and the states can pick up the slack.

Of course, some people simply assume it is "buearocratic waste" when they haven't even read it or considered it. :rolleyes:

The point of developing the idea was simply to show that even a laymen like me could think up some compromises with fail safes and I'm sure really intelligent people who better understand the economy could do a far better job of it.

:thumbsup:

prometheus

01-23-2008, 03:13 PM

:thumbsup:

Right now, most (if not all) donations to hospitals and health clinics are tax deductible, how are you going to "motivate" people to donate when they aren't now.

1OFMANY

01-23-2008, 04:38 PM

Lights

01-23-2008, 04:44 PM

It would almost be worth it to accept some of the most horrendeously liberal and freedom-destructive policies just so there would be no platform for the current Democratic party to fool their constituants with lol. The policies will crumble like a house of cards, people would come back to reality and we would have a net gain of no slimy-libs in power :)
Id rather live with greedy corporate puppets anyday! ;)

Being antiliberal isn't an argument against socialized health care.

Seeing as how I didn't even have to say anything new in my last six posts, I think this discussion has been tapped out. Somebody else can argue with the silly radicals if they want to.

1OFMANY

01-23-2008, 04:45 PM

Being antiliberal isn't an argument against socialized medicine.

Seeing as how I didn't even have to say anything new in my last six posts, I think this discussion has been tapped out. Somebody else can argue with the silly radicals if they want to.

Ill agree with that. Besides, I owe an apology for changing my subject in the middle of a thread, it was a tad confusing. :(

evoviiigsr

01-23-2008, 04:57 PM

Unless someone can present a halfway decent argument against my posts (175 and 181), then it looks like the libertarian argument holds, and strongly so.

thod

01-23-2008, 05:31 PM

The basic problem you are up against is view point. They are arguing what is best for them.

They are not placing themselves in the shoes of the guy that is designing a system that is best for all. Ask them how they treat their kids and they will say "equal". That because they are in the parental role and know that favoring one hurts the others.
If they were president and saw the citizens in the way they see their kids then you would get different answers, not "let them die", just as they dont want that to happen to their kids. Its an inabilty to take that role and think from the wider perspecitve combined with self advantage. They are of the opinion that if I say a circle is a square enough times it makes it so. We know a private health care system is bad for you, its bad for the rich and good for the poor. Now start thinking like a leader instead of someone looking only after his self interest.

Lights

01-23-2008, 05:42 PM

Well said.

Now I feel silly for wasting my time trying to discuss it with them. Live and learn I guess.

evoviiigsr

01-23-2008, 06:21 PM

Lights

01-23-2008, 06:38 PM

Regulation decreases competition and makes prices higher than they should be, hurting everyone in the process. That's all there is to it. Sure the poor should be helped. Socialization is not the answer. There are many other ways.

No you made it clear that you believed almost 100% in privatization. That is only one alternative.

This is all the help I can give you guys.

Critical thinking is questioning what you believe.

1. Identify and challenge your assumptions.
2. Be aware of your standpoint, the position from which you are asking questions.
3. Look for alternative ways of thinking.
4. Be skeptical of rigid beliefs, especially your own.

Good luck. :thumbsup:

prometheus

01-23-2008, 08:09 PM

Critical thinking is questioning what you believe.

1. Identify and challenge your assumptions.
2. Be aware of your standpoint, the position from which you are asking questions.
3. Look for alternative ways of thinking.
4. Be skeptical of rigid beliefs, especially your own.

There are certain morals that are believed worldwide (except for by you guys) such as theft is bad, murder is bad. No amount of critical thinking will change these, only delusional thinking can.

prometheus added to this post, 31 minutes and 6 seconds later...

I just have to post this.

JOANNA
So you're stealing.

PETER
Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh,
it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh,
over time, they add up to a lot.

JOANNA
Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?

PETER
Yeah.

JOANNA
Ok. That's not yours?

PETER
Well, it, it becomes ours.

JOANNA
How's that not stealing?

PETER
I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well. Um, this
Seven Eleven, right? If you take a penny from the tray -

JOANNA
From the crippled children?!

AgentofGaming

01-23-2008, 08:20 PM

Regulation decreases competition and makes prices higher than they should be, hurting everyone in the process. That's all there is to it. Sure the poor should be helped. Socialization is not the answer. There are many other ways.
Do anti-trust regulations decrease competition? or do monopolies?
I don't see how preventing monopolies can increase prices.

There are certain morals that are believed worldwide (except for by you guys) such as theft is bad, murder is bad. No amount of critical thinking will change these, only delusional thinking can.
.
Who said that?

Some like their funds culminated into big projects like environmental initiatives, or healthcare. Some see it as a contribution to building and being a member of their country. Just because you think tax is theft doesn't mean everyone else does.

Colette

01-23-2008, 08:40 PM

Unless someone can present a halfway decent argument against my posts (175 and 181), then it looks like the libertarian argument holds, and strongly so.

Rule #1 of argumentation: Arguments do not win by default (i.e. because everyone else is so bored/frustrated that they can't be bothered refuting what you have said). Learn this, and you will go far in this life ;)

prometheus

01-23-2008, 08:41 PM

Some like their funds culminated into big projects like environmental initiatives, or healthcare. Some see it as a contribution to building and being a member of their country. Just because you think tax is theft doesn't mean everyone else does.

Some might like to "voluntarily donate", at the point of a gun. But, I aint one of them, and will call it what it is; theft.

"Damnit Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
"My beliefs do not require them to."
―Jason Lock and Morpheus

My beliefs are like Morpheus's. Your's on the other hand require everyone to blindly, unquestionably follow the mob rule. And if someone refuses you won't lose any sleep over the fact your hired thugs will kill them.

thod

01-24-2008, 07:29 AM

What is ownership? It is a claim to the sole usage of something. This doesnt place any obligation on the owner. The obligation is placed on every other person. By claiming ownership you are negatively effecting every other person. It is their choices and actions that are restricted.

Yet no man has the ability to forcibly restrict every other persons choices. They are free to ignore the claim. The owner may see this as trespass on the rights claimed. They see it as freedom. It comes down to the ability to enforce ones will.

If a guy owns some land and another starts to farm his land since he doesnt accept the claim, what then. If the first guy shoots him, then thats akin to shooting him for being on public land. It would be seen a murder and is best dealt with by removing the murderer so he doesnt shoot the next guy that walks on his claimed land.

There are organisations out there that will sell you acres of the moon. You can get your land certificate from them. But how many people accept that they own large swathes of the moon. Not many at all. Ownership comes from the state and its ability to use force to back that up. The state cannot steal, it already owns everything. It only grants licences for others to use its assets. The courts can take all your property in fines if they choose. The state is ultimately the will of the people. The people own everything not individuals.

Some might like to "voluntarily donate", at the point of a gun. But, I aint one of them, and will call it what it is; theft.

All taxes are classed as an extraction not a debt. If you dont pay your tax the state is not collecting a debt. Without the ability to make an extraction then nobody would ever pay anything. I gain equaly from a police force if I pay for them or not. Voluntary contributions would be spread too thinly to do much. Most people would see the advantage of leeching. To ensure all pay you must have it compulsary backed by forceful extraction.

My beliefs are like Morpheus's. Your's on the other hand require everyone to blindly, unquestionably follow the mob rule. And if someone refuses you won't lose any sleep over the fact your hired thugs will kill them.

Perhaps its simply a case of being less arrogant. One man is small, even if in his own head he is the whole world.There is no need for "hired thugs" the men doing that job are doing it for duty not pay. They dont fight for themselves they fight because its the right thing to do. They see themselves as the "good guys" and the opposition as the "bad guys". Cops are not doing it for pay, the genuinly beleive they are making the world a better place. Soldiers dont fight for pay, they fight because their squad mates are relying on them. All of them are doing it because they see something outside that is bigger than themselves andf their interests.

prometheus

01-24-2008, 05:13 PM

Perhaps its simply a case of being less arrogant. One man is small, even if in his own head he is the whole world.There is no need for "hired thugs" the men doing that job are doing it for duty not pay. They dont fight for themselves they fight because its the right thing to do. They see themselves as the "good guys" and the opposition as the "bad guys". Cops are not doing it for pay, the genuinly beleive they are making the world a better place. Soldiers dont fight for pay, they fight because their squad mates are relying on them. All of them are doing it because they see something outside that is bigger than themselves andf their interests.

You need to stop reading this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) so much.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..........

Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

Lights

01-24-2008, 05:46 PM

There are certain morals that are believed worldwide (except for by you guys) such as theft is bad, murder is bad. No amount of critical thinking will change these, only delusional thinking can.

Wow, you didn't even make it past the first step. :laugh:

Believe it or not, the concept of civil rights was created only a few hundred years ago. But even John Locke said that civil rights are earned by being a good citizen.

prometheus

01-24-2008, 06:55 PM

Wow, you didn't even make it past the first step. :laugh:

Believe it or not, the concept of civil rights was created only a few hundred years ago. But even John Locke said that civil rights are earned by being a good citizen.

A remedial history lesson for those who were obviously picking their noses or elsewhere through all of school.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Feel free to go ahead and get the hell out of my country, china doesn't believe in "the tripe" from men like Jefferson.............You would fit right in. Too bad Soviet Russia fell, I would have bought you a ticket there personally.

I know you won't read it, but I post it so others can laugh at you.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is the first time our natural rights were enumerated, this is just the first time they were spoken of in a legal sense, not their origins.

Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215...............Now follow along.

2008
-1215
_____

Is this "minuses" more than 200?

Lights

01-24-2008, 07:38 PM

Is this "minuses" more than 200?

You overlooked the point.

I'm sorry that people's rights get diminished, but the world isn't perfect. Pro lifers want the right to life respected for fetuses but women want the right to liberty respected so that they can choose to do what they want with their body. If rights were truly inalienable then they wouldn't conflict, but that is just he nature of the world.

I get tired of repeating myself prometheus. Just because Thomas Jefferson wrote that they were God endowed rights doesn't make it true. Even your own link points out that it is a theoretical construct. It's a philosophy and as such, practicing it blindly makes it a religion. Being enculterated is no excuse for not questioning your own beliefs.

prometheus

01-24-2008, 07:57 PM

You overlooked the point.

I get tired of repeating myself prometheus. Just because Thomas Jefferson wrote that they were God endowed rights doesn't make it true. Even your own link points out that it is a theoretical construct. It's a philosophy and as such, practicing it blindly makes it a religion. Being enculterated is no excuse for not questioning your own beliefs.

What point? That your math is as bad as your history? I thought that it was obvious.

The Natural Rights, that were the basis for Magna Carta, that was the basis for all common law, which was the basis for our American legal system, is what is protecting your right to pursue your homosexual lifestyle, and is what is protecting you from me coming down there and physically whacking some sense into you.

Funny how you don't appreciate it.

Lights

01-24-2008, 08:20 PM

What point? That your math is as bad as your history? I thought that it was obvious.

The Natural Rights, that were the basis for Magna Carta, that was the basis for all common law, which was the basis for our American legal system, is what is protecting your right to pursue your homosexual lifestyle, and is what is protecting you from me coming down there and physically whacking some sense into you.

Funny how you don't appreciate it.

I love how you avoid the arguments against inalienable rights because you don't have the capacity to dismiss them. Instead you choose to focus on arguing when naturalized rights came about. I concede they came about at the time of the Magna Carta. Now address the other arguments if you can.

prometheus

01-24-2008, 09:06 PM

Lights

01-24-2008, 09:26 PM

How 'bout this you answer one, just one of the many questions you have been avoiding since the beginning of this thread, and I'll give you chapter 2 of remedial history.

This is the one I want answered:

How many of these tenets do you believe in and aren't you concerned by it?

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

You are avoiding my question so that you can pull a guilty by association on me? Fine, I'll answer the question even though it is completely irrelevant to anything. :rolleyes:

I believe in (universal baseline) health care, I believe in public education (and vouchers), I believe in freedom of religion, and I also believe in separation of church and state.

I don't advocate anti-smoking laws, gun control, or restriction of free speech.

I'm undecided on euthanasia, and I'm just as skeptical of the free market as I am of the government.

And here are some other beliefs I hold that most Nazis undoubtedly believe.

1+1=2
The world revolves around the sun.
Humans need water to live.

So clearly anybody who holds those beliefs must be horrible Nazis. :rolleyes:

Now answer my questions.

pavman

01-24-2008, 10:12 PM

I really don't think it's going to matter. This country is BROKE (as in there is no more money broke) Did you see what the head bean counter at the GAO said last week? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wonderful, the ME generation has screwed us all... good thing we float the world (all numbers approx estimates, YMMV...seek latest economist for up-to-date numbers... 812B$ in goods trafficking ... next closest country: UK approx. 120B$).... screw the world, if we sink, they do to.

:o)

As for socialized healthcare...hell no. What we should do is repeal the idea that pharmaceuticals can advertise, create more stringent standardizations for health care organizations (ie, make it harder for them to turn folks down), and encourage private health care companies rather than public ones, as this creates an incentive towards poorer healthcare vis-a-vis the Wall Street carrot and stick routine... ie. profitability vs providing adequate care...imagine if your auto-insurance company worked the way the health care insurance carries work...

I'd go into more detail, but I've gotten addicted to free on-line poker ;o)

Lastly... check this out about fascism and national socialism... and America.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Colette

01-25-2008, 01:32 AM

thod

01-25-2008, 05:24 AM

and encourage private health care companies rather than public ones, as this creates an incentive towards poorer healthcare vis-a-vis the Wall Street carrot and stick routine... ie. profitability vs providing adequate care...imagine if your auto-insurance company worked the way the health care insurance carries work...

A public health care system does not have to provide the care with its own institutions. Its just as viable to have it as a central buying system purchasing the needed health care from private providers.

The idea is to remove the money, no healthcare problem, not to administer hospitals. You can even give the patient the choice of which institution they attend for their treatments. The state is drawing up the list of providers for you, and meeting the bill. As they are paying, they are going to interested in success rates and value for money when it comes to various treatments. A healthcare provder that does not perform will be removed from the list.

The mechanics and implementation are not an issue for advocates of public health care. The only thing that matters is that the poor man have access to healthcare. The poor man gains that access even from a grossly inefficient system. The rich man, who is the main contributer, wants the most efficient system he can get to lower his costs. The ideal being no healthcare at all meaning no costs. Yet that is not an option, the problem has been stated and it is our task to solve it. Denial of the problem does solve it.

Ask the rich man, there is no problem with healthcare, ask a poor man, there is. If either of them says there is a problem then there is (OR logic). The rich man says there is problem with cost, the poor man says there is not. This means there is a problem with cost. We find a solution that is equaly acceptable to both and that means compromise by both parties.

You need to stop reading this so much.

Machiavelli is worth reading. I thought it was pretty good in my teenage years. There is truth there but there are other truths too. I dont hold with Ayn Rand and the rocky mountain survivalists either. There is truth there, but once again it is a subset. Internal models are built from multiple sources both academic and experimental. Be eclectic in your readings and learn from them all. It doesnt matter if its Lenin or Jesus, the idea is to gain new insights and update your internal models, your understanding.

Tsuru

01-25-2008, 11:23 AM

(Long winded lecture ahead! ;D)

I see a lot of people saying that human rights are subjective or arbitrary, and indeed it's hard to formulate and articulate the fundamental defense for them because it's a complex subject that has unfortunately been given VERY little attention by (post)modern thinkers. But they aren't subjective or arbitrary.

Natural rights are the objectively needed conditions that humans require to function and survive in the universe. People don't live in a vacuum: they must do specific things to live.

The two necessary factors of human survival are THINKING and PRODUCING. Humans are fundamentally weak creatures: we have no claws, no fangs, no speed or bulk or warming fur: all we have as our means of survival is our ability to THINK. Humans must produce in order to survive, and they must be able to THINK in order to produce. It's from these two necessary factors that individual rights come from - because they are the RIGHT living conditions people need to live. In complex society, the right to think extends to freedom of speech, voluntary organization, and the like. And the right (and need) to produce fundamentally requires property rights in order to work.

The degree to which states, religions, and thugs do not dominate individuals and do not violate those rights is the degree to which the individuals and societies survive. The degree to which they DO violate them is the degree that they suffer and perish.

Look at modern society: some have said that "rights" are a modern construct within the last 300 years. Look at the last 300 years of those countries that recognized those rights! Technology, thought, art, medicine, lifespans, luxury, and the sheer quality of life have improved on an exponential scale the likes of which have never been seen in human history. The ever-looming threat of starvation and (much of) nature's wrath is practically a thing of the past. Even those in the lowest economic brackets (mostly) have a stable and readily available supply of food, clothing, shelter, heating, air conditioning, incredible travel and communication capacity, and a staggering amount of literature, entertainment, and music at their disposal the likes of which would only be available to kings and aristocrats for most of human history. Basic struggles of survival are a very strange exception, not the rule. As horrible as some jobs are, people have all this even with a simple job like making hamburgers or cleaning dishes - (and the same goes for nice jobs like therapists, artists, and authors) jobs that could not sustain life in a world and society that was not economically free.

Look at the societies that do not recognize those rights (great examples are North Korea and authoritarian African states): they are plagued with starvation and an inability to function on levels we would consider pretty basic, because looters there are free to seize any effort people make at any moment they wish. It isn't because they have hard luck or are dominated by patriarchy or because those who "have" hoard away from the "have nots" as modern thinkers would likely say. It's because they do not recognize individual rights - their society can't function beyond primitive slavery or utter poverty as long as they don't and simply loot to (barely) sustain themselves.

This same pattern is seen throughout history: human history has largely been pain, sickness, suffering, and endless toil for basic survival: because humans have almost always been dominated by the state, religion, and thugs. The only gems of history where people thrived are the societies that respected individual civil rights and economic rights to some basic degree (Ancient Greece, Rome) - and those socieites declined and dissolved when they stopped doing so and were overrun by tyrants and thugs that did not. The world fell into the dark ages when Rome was deteriorated and destroyed by tyrants and looters. It finally came out of it only with the renaissance's slowly increasing respect for individual rights.

The vast boon of the recent history isn't due to random whims and fluctuations of chance - it's due to the fact that people's rights are truly respected - particularly their property rights - for the first time in history. People are able to produce and think without the risk of a random thug (legal or not) walking in to plunder the fruits of their labor. And the reason the US is the largest economy and the quality of life is so good isn't because of random favor, it's because its economy is the freest (and the smartest producers move there to gain the largest rewards for their work) - and now it is vastly declining because of the ever increasing socialization. It really scares me that much of modern thought seems very keen on dismissing the idea of property rights because of others' "need" or because the productively adept have "more than they require" or because of the irrational idea that wealth is somehow simply "taken" rather than produced. It's mostly heralded by academics, who often produce nothing themselves, which is somewhat telling.

The more moderate socialist societies only thrive and prosper to the extent that they borrow from the creations of freer markets and the extent that they depend on the charity of productive individuals that choose to stay in their country in spite of the high taxes and curses they receive from the public and politicians for their 'greed'. Can you name 50 important big life-improving inventions that have come from socialist countries (or really any country that isn't the US or Japan really) within the last 100 years? I can't. Even with careful research you'd have trouble.

Native Americans lived a swell communal life? Their lives were often nasty, brutish, and short because their society allowed no innovation or productive improvement. They were at the utter mercy of nature, disease, famine, and other tribes that chose to make war with them. They had no privacy: their lives were dominated by the tribe. They spent most of their day toiling for food.

Some may say that in a naturalistic perspective, people are "free" to steal or kill (legally or not) because they can, but a society of killers and thieves (or a society of politicians) cannot survive. They only survive by the grace of their victims, those people that think and produce that they loot from.

When property and civil rights are respected (and to the degree that they are respected), human interaction changes from tribalism and violence into individualism and trade - and the results are obvious.

To tie this into the topic, some might retort that "you need healthcare to live, and thus healthcare is a right." But healthcare provided by whom? By what means? Healthcare isn't something you can pick off a tree - it's the work and production of someone else. Claiming the right to doctors and hospitals is akin to claiming the right to a neighbors house if you have none yourself, to the grocery store's or your neighbor's food if you cannot buy it, to a company's job if you do not have it. All of these are required to live much moreso than healthcare is. But it is all the exact same principle.

How will medicine advance when there is no profit motive for inventors in the field? Who will buy their work when the system struggles deeply just to keep up with current demand?

It would be interesting to see what healthcare would be like if there were not the massive amounts of government regulation that there are now. Every other industry becomes CHEAPER as technology advances. But healthcare, the (probably) most regulated industry in the US only gets more expensive. I do wonder why. I don't pretend to be an expert on healthcare, and I don't pretend to have explicit ideas on how to fix the healthcare crisis. I really don't know. :/

So uhh, civil and property rights are necessary and real and objective. That's what I'm trying to convey above all else. *nods*

.... Well that was pretty long winded. You are now free to misquote me and go off on critical tangents on trivial details! :P

Colette

01-25-2008, 11:40 AM

prometheus

01-25-2008, 12:24 PM

You are avoiding my question so that you can pull a guilty by association on me? Fine, I'll answer the question even though it is completely irrelevant to anything. :rolleyes:

I believe in (universal baseline) health care, I believe in public education (and vouchers), I believe in freedom of religion, and I also believe in separation of church and state.

I don't advocate anti-smoking laws, gun control, or restriction of free speech.

I'm undecided on euthanasia, and I'm just as skeptical of the free market as I am of the government.

And here are some other beliefs I hold that most Nazis undoubtedly believe.

1+1=2
The world revolves around the sun.
Humans need water to live.

So clearly anybody who holds those beliefs must be horrible Nazis. :rolleyes:

Now answer my questions.

Lesson 2 is at the end of the post.

You answered more than I expected but missed, guaranteed jobs, inheritance taxes, racial quota system, animal "rights", and speech codes.
We are comparing the bulk of Hitler's socioeconomic beliefs to yours....your whole guilt by association, would only work if we were comparing facts unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Tsuru brought up some excellent points, +1 that a society that fights against natural rights, will fail poor and hungry as they all have.

There is the theological argument that god gave rights to all people equally, but I prefer the this definition:

“Natural” [rights] can refer to a primeval state of affairs before the institution of any human laws or customs or conventions; or the word can refer to the intrinsic, permanent characteristics of human beings as self-aware, moral, rational creatures.”

prometheus added to this post, 5 minutes and 53 seconds later...

Colette and Lights, if you have no right to your property, what is to keep me from taking it. I guarantee you I have more and better guns than you and more training with them. The only thing stopping this is I don't agree with the might-makes-right theory and believe in rights.

Tsuru

01-25-2008, 12:31 PM

Tsuru I don't believe it's possible to have an informed debate about the nature and validity of 'rights' (whether 'natural rights', or 'human rights'; often used as interchangeable terms) without understanding a little about their origin in Western societies. The concept of 'natural' rights sprang initially from the theory of natural law that was put forward by philosophers/writers such as Hobbes, Kant and Rousseau during the enlightenment. The idea of the 'social contract' (and the set of 'natural/human' rights which purportedly flowed from it), began as a reaction to, and rejection of, the divine right of kings to rule, and to determine the needs/rights/destiny, or whatever, of their subjects.

No offense, but did you read any of what I wrote?

Colette

01-25-2008, 12:53 PM

No offense, but did you read any of what I wrote?

Yep. What part did you imagine I didn't read? And how do you imagine I missed your point, as a result?

thod

01-25-2008, 01:09 PM

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

So he wasnt all bad then.

Free health care - A good thing. Its hard to oppose a healthy populace and promote sickness.

Guaranteed jobs - Makes sense, better than welfare checks. Even if its just pickup up litter.

Confiscated inherited wealth - A good thing. Too many non productive people living of their rents. Let the people own their own homes. An accident of birth should not determine your position in society.

Vast sums on public education - A good thing, I cant see why an ignorant population is any benefit. How do you oppose giving people education.

Purged the church from public policy - Seperation of state and church. Someone tell Bush.

Promoted a new form of pagan spirituality - A bad thing, done for purposes of control and more importantly to create an identity of germaness unique to them.

Inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. - A bad thing. The state only needs to know what it needs to know.

The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported euthanasia, and gun control. - I agree more healthy citizens, no lingering terminal illness, and no teenagers shooting each other.

They loathed the free market - The free market has its place. There are no free markets without state control only monopolies.

Provided generous pensions for the elderly - A good thing. Who wants granny to die of the cold.

And maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage - You need enough germans graduating to keep things running.

Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist - All very laudable.

Hitler and the Nazi's had a lot of good things going for them. Its a pity they had to be racist and warmongers too.

Tsuru brought up some excellent points, +1 that a society that fights against natural rights, will fail poor and hungry as they all have.

You can hardly call Britain a failure. They still are not citizens only subjects. You had no rights until the EU convention. The government was free to make any laws it wishs only tradition stands in the way. The courts cannot stop them. The government is the whole of the law.

if you have no right to your property, what is to keep me from taking it. I guarantee you I have more and better guns than you and more training with them. The only thing stopping this is I don't agree with the might-makes-right theory and believe in rights.

There is nothing stopping you except fear of the law. You can take any property you wish but you wont be able to hold it long. If you can out gun the police and the army you can take it. Thats the real world.

Tsuru

01-25-2008, 01:17 PM

Yep. What part did you imagine I didn't read? And how do you imagine I missed your point, as a result?

That natural rights come from the necessary conditions required for human survival rather than being mere political constructs that are "granted."

Saying it's a recent invention of western society and that "some other societies don't have legal rights, so rights don't really exist" is pretty much missing the point that I was making: that people and societies starve or thrive based on respecting individuals' thought and by not infringing on their productive capacities, and that those objective needs (whether they are recognized or not, named or not, explicitly or implicitly, in degrees or in entirety or exclusion) exist independently of whatever society you may be looking at. Societies that ignore and infringe are lethal societies and survive only to the point that they can loot and plunder from others that think and produce in spite of it.

In other words, you're saying that rights come from governments and it refutes it all. That was the concept I was explicitly arguing against - and I think the reasons and premises I gave are quite strong enough TO make it subject to debate.

In other words, to draw an analogy:
People can't eat poisonous plants to sustain themselves. A group of people can proclaim as loud as they want that eating poison plants will provide all the nutrition they need, and they can even force everyone to eat poison, but their group consensus does not change basic facts of reality and the needs of survivability: they'll all end up dead or sick. It's true even if they had no idea that the plants were poison.

It's the same with the respect of an individual's right to think and produce. A society can ignore it or say that they do not exist, but the society will starve and perish to the degree that they don't. It's an easily objectively observable fact when you look at history.

The rights exist whether a thug with a sword or a gun is there to threaten it or not.

People are free to act as if rights do not exist, but they're acting towards their own and others' destruction when they do (again, the reward comes only when there are victims to loot).

prometheus

01-25-2008, 01:19 PM

Thod, is this part of the tenets of the special super secret ancient cult, whose breeding pairs produced you, and proved you through (undoubtedly) some sort of serpent poison?

Colette

01-25-2008, 01:50 PM

Tsuru: Needs are not the same as 'rights' - rights carry a concept of legitimate expectation, and an economic and political consequence. By conflating the two, I think you are doing your argument a grave disservice :)

Lights

01-25-2008, 02:29 PM

You answered more than I expected but missed, guaranteed jobs, inheritance taxes, racial quota system, animal "rights", and speech codes.
We are comparing the bulk of Hitler's socioeconomic beliefs to yours....your whole guilt by association, would only work if we were comparing facts unrelated to the discussion at hand.

:rolleyes:

I would say that the bulk of nazi beliefs also contains 1+1=2 and the Earth revolves around the sun.

All you did was point out that Nazis had a lot of similar beliefs to modern socialists.
You then tried to articulate that all socialist beliefs must be wrong.

Therefore you perfectly followed through on a guilty by association fallacy. An example of your reasoning is, "you probably think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it!" That is all your reasoning is saying, and it's pretty pathetic. You even selectively chose the beliefs that Nazis shared with modern socialists. You even left out their fundamental belief in racial supremacy because it didn't mesh with the association. You didn't fool anybody but yourself.

Colette and Lights, if you have no right to your property, what is to keep me from taking it. I guarantee you I have more and better guns than you and more training with them. The only thing stopping this is I don't agree with the might-makes-right theory and believe in rights.

And now that you have lost with the guilty by association tactic, you are shifting to appeal to the consequences of belief (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). You are saying that if we didn't believe in such rights then bad things would happen. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

Rights were constructed by men as part of the natural evolution of law. It only stands to reason that the idea isn't perfect unto itself, and that is evident in defining of those rights. Often they conflict as I mentioned to you time and time again but you choose to ignore. Others may claim rights to things such as education and health care, which you would shoot down but how are they so much less valid than to your right for property? Even more often, our own democracy (Consitutional Republic) asks the minrority to voluntarily forfeit some of their rights to the majority. Hence ideas like taxes. Honestly, you can't make a strong argument for something that doesn't actually exist. And as law continues to evolve so does our idea of rights. Maybe one day health care will be an "inalienable" right in this country.

@ tsuru: What makes you so sure about Natural Rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

The idea of anything being universal and absolute seems ludicrous to me. It's a religious concept. Now, I'm all for civil rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and human rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I just don't believe in "God endowed rights". Why would you attribute the success of societies to natural rights and not to civil or human ones?

prometheus

01-25-2008, 03:28 PM

Lights, great site. I can see how it has been so useful to you for poo pooing away damaging arguments.

I'll use this one on your "I'm a social worker, so I know about socialized medicine"
Fallacious Appeal to Authority (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This one on your "taxes aren't theft, because most people don't believe that"
Fallacious Appeal to Belief (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This one on your "since everybody pays their taxes, their are morally correct"
Fallacious Appeal to Common Practice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This one on your "we don't want people dieing from lack of medical care"
Fallacious Appeal to Emotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
That's just out of the first 10, I'll save the next 32 for future posts. Thanks for the great resource.

Lights

01-25-2008, 03:41 PM

prometheus

01-25-2008, 03:42 PM

Lights

01-25-2008, 03:46 PM

I don't think we have had a single thread (we both were in) you HAVEN"T used this on:

Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation
Description of Middle Ground

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.

Oh, I've improved the quality of my posts as I've gone throughout this thread. Whereas you have gone deeper, and deeper into fallacies. I challenge you or anyone to find many fallacies in my posts over the last few pages. Irregardless, I stand openly admitting to fallacies I have made. Would you like me to go back and find all yours? Because there are plenty.

However, I'm still waiting for you to take on my latest arguments.

Colette

01-25-2008, 03:57 PM

Oh, I've improved the quality of my posts as I've gone throughout this thread. Whereas you have gone deeper, and deeper into fallacies. I challenge you or anyone to find many fallacies in my posts over the last few pages. Irregardless, I stand openly admitting to fallacies I have made. Would you like me to go back and find all yours? Because there are plenty.

However, I'm still waiting for you to take on my latest arguments.

Not entirely sure why you're bothering, here. I guess you have your reasons - or maybe you just like to repeat the same thing in 20 different ways, and still not have it understood ;)

prometheus

01-25-2008, 04:07 PM

Oh, I've improved the quality of my posts as I've gone throughout this thread. Whereas you have gone deeper, and deeper into fallacies. I challenge you or anyone to find many fallacies in my posts over the last few pages. Irregardless, I stand openly admitting to fallacies I have made. Would you like me to go back and find all yours? Because there are plenty.

However, I'm still waiting for you to take on my latest arguments.

Sure, go for it. You've been using that site the whole time, I'm sure you pointed out each and everyone.

What were your "arguments"?

Lights

01-25-2008, 04:08 PM

Not entirely sure why you're bothering, here. I guess you have your reasons - or maybe you just like to repeat the same thing in 20 different ways, and still not have it understood ;)

If you want a keen blade, you need to find a really hard rock to sharpen it against. ;)

Lights added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Sure, go for it. You've been using that site the whole time, I'm sure you pointed out each and everyone.

What were your "arguments"?

Rights were constructed by men as part of the natural evolution of law. It only stands to reason that the idea isn't perfect unto itself, and that is evident in defining of those rights. Often they conflict as I mentioned to you time and time again but you choose to ignore. Others may claim rights to things such as education and health care, which you would shoot down but how are they so much less valid than to your right for property? Even more often, our own democracy (Consitutional Republic) asks the minrority to voluntarily forfeit some of their rights to the majority. Hence ideas like taxes. Honestly, you can't make a strong argument for something that doesn't actually exist. And as law continues to evolve so does our idea of rights. Maybe one day health care will be an "inalienable" right in this country.

@ tsuru: What makes you so sure about Natural Rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

The idea of anything being universal and absolute seems ludicrous to me. It's a religious concept. Now, I'm all for civil rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and human rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I just don't believe in "God endowed rights". Why would you attribute the success of societies to natural rights and not to civil or human ones?

prometheus

01-25-2008, 04:33 PM

Lights

01-25-2008, 04:49 PM

I just went back and reread your posts for the last few pages, All I could see was a desperate attempt to argue away the direct link between genocides, and socialism.

You might call it guilt by association. But these historical facts are very relevant, considering you want to push our country further in that direction.

No other socioeconomic ideology is responsible for so many murders. To not keep in mind this historical data is the political equivalent of hiring a paroled child rapist as a babysitter.

Communist Gulag 40 million people killed.

Communist leader Mao 49-78 million.

These two alone account for more than all the other genocides, and mass killings, of the 20th century COMBINED.

I know for historical experience fire is hot, I know the muzzle end of a gun is dangerous, I know liquid nitrogen is cold, that knives are sharp. Should I forget these facts just because they might be incriminating in some cases?

What has that to do with my arguments about rights? And why do you keep confounding political ideologies with socioeconomic beliefs? The Soviet Union, Old China, and Nazi Germany have absolutely no relevance to the discussion of socialized health care in America. I think the reality is totalitarian governments are bad for people. And that has nothing to do with discussing a socialized policy in a constitutional republic.

prometheus

01-25-2008, 04:54 PM

Rights were constructed by men as part of the natural evolution of law. It only stands to reason that the idea isn't perfect unto itself, and that is evident in defining of those rights. Often they conflict as I mentioned to you time and time again but you choose to ignore. Others may claim rights to things such as education and health care, which you would shoot down but how are they so much less valid than to your right for property? Even more often, our own democracy (Consitutional Republic) asks the minrority to voluntarily forfeit some of their rights to the majority. Hence ideas like taxes. Honestly, you can't make a strong argument for something that doesn't actually exist. And as law continues to evolve so does our idea of rights. Maybe one day health care will be an "inalienable" right in this country.

If this was your argument, Many people have addressed it, myself included. All rights are property rights. They are based on the question of "Do you own yourself, and your labors".

You cannot destroy property rights and expect any society to survive for long. Many examples have been made already. People won't voluntarily be forced into slavery, lucky Bush has already started a wall.

Oh, and since you wished me to point these out for you.

Even more often, our own democracy (Consitutional Republic) asks the minrority to voluntarily forfeit some of their rights to the majority.

Fallacious Appeal to Belief (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Fallacious Appeal to Common Practice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Lights

01-25-2008, 05:08 PM

If this was your argument, Many people have addressed it, myself included. All rights are property rights. They are based on the question of "Do you own yourself, and your labors".

You cannot destroy property rights and expect any society to survive for long. Many examples have been made already. People won't voluntarily be forced into slavery, lucky Bush has already started a wall.

So ultimately, you believe in the natural right to property. I believe in the civil right to property. You base your idea on the assumption that a society can't survive without the concept of "property".

Oh, and since you wished me to point these out for you.

Fallacious Appeal to Belief (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Fallacious Appeal to Common Practice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Um...no. :thinking: Although I would be willing to see how you connect those fallacies to what I said. Please explain. ;D

prometheus

01-25-2008, 05:31 PM

What has that to do with my arguments about rights? And why do you keep confounding political ideologies with socioeconomic beliefs? The Soviet Union, Old China, and Nazi Germany have absolutely no relevance to the discussion of socialized health care in America. I think the reality is totalitarian governments are bad for people. And that has nothing to do with discussing a socialized policy in a constitutional republic.

Socialized Medicine / Socialist countries.

Nazi Germany refers to Germany between 1933 to 1945. In this period, the country was governed by the National Socialist German Workers Party, or "Nazi Party"

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)

I'm sure you don't want to argue that China isn't socialist.

prometheus added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Perhaps you can talk Hillary into calling it, Free Band-aid Medicine.

prometheus added to this post, 14 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Even more often, our own democracy (Consitutional Republic) asks the minrority to voluntarily forfeit some of their rights to the majority.

Um...no. :thinking: Although I would be willing to see how you connect those fallacies to what I said. Please explain. ;D

Appeal to belief:
There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

Your statement could be true in a democracy, however not valid in a constitutionally LIMITED republic, which we are. Even if the bulk of the Jerry Springer going people in this country don't know the difference I do. There is a huge difference!

Common Practice:
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

There are legitimate claims that the 16th amendment was never ratified. Even if it was properly ratified it was set up to tax corporate earnings only, never wages. Finally it is VOLUNTARY, people have argued this in court and won.

Colette

01-25-2008, 05:33 PM

Um...no. :thinking: Although I would be willing to see how you connect those fallacies to what I said. Please explain. ;D

You sure you want his Phallus-ies connected with your words? :p

Lights

01-25-2008, 05:43 PM

Socialized Medicine / Socialist countries.

Nazi Germany refers to Germany between 1933 to 1945. In this period, the country was governed by the National Socialist German Workers Party, or "Nazi Party"

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)

I'm sure you don't want to argue that China isn't socialist.

prometheus added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Perhaps you can talk Hillary into calling it, Free Band-aid Medicine.

Socialized totalitarian governments. You seem to like to overlook the totalitarian part. Honestly I'm not too worried about Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, France, etc, going around killing off massive groups of people because they have adopted socialized health care. :laugh:

In all the wars the United States has been in, how many people do you think we have killed?

Lights added to this post, 7 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Your statement could be true in a democracy, however not valid in a constitutionally LIMITED republic, which we are. Even if the bulk of the Jerry Springer going people in this country don't know the difference I do. There is a huge difference!

What is the difference?

There are legitimate claims that the 16th amendment was never ratified. Even if it was properly ratified it was set up to tax corporate earnings only, never wages. Finally it is VOLUNTARY, people have argued this in court and won.

Interesting.

prometheus

01-25-2008, 06:02 PM

Socialized totalitarian governments. You seem to like to overlook the totalitarian part. Honestly I'm not too worried about Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, France, etc, going around killing off massive groups of people because they have adopted socialized health care. :laugh:

In all the wars the United States has been in, how many people do you think we have killed?

WWII 40-72 million total casualties, very close to Mao's 40-70 million

Korean War 2.5- 3.5 million + Vietnam 2.5 -5 million, less than Hitler's 11 million

Pol pot's .75- 1.7 million is probably close to what we have done in the middle east lately.

That still leaves Stalin's 40 million.

I'd like to point out that ALL of these deaths were that the hands of governments, but the socialists win hands down for murder.

prometheus added to this post, 4 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Your statement could be true in a democracy, however not valid in a constitutionally LIMITED republic, which we are. Even if the bulk of the Jerry Springer going people in this country don't know the difference I do. There is a huge difference!

What is the difference?

Quite a lot, read this:

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

errrzarrr

01-25-2008, 06:03 PM

AgentofGaming

01-25-2008, 06:14 PM

No other socioeconomic ideology is responsible for so many murders. To not keep in mind this historical data is the political equivalent of hiring a paroled child rapist as a babysitter.

Communist Gulag 40 million people killed.

Communist leader Mao 49-78 million.

These two alone account for more than all the other genocides, and mass killings, of the 20th century COMBINED.

There's a difference between Democratic Socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and Revolutionary Socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

What you are talking about is the latter, what people here are talking about is the former. Social Democracy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Socialized Medicine / Socialist countries.
You make it sound if Canada, Sweden and other countries sound communist. See above.

Nazi Germany refers to Germany between 1933 to 1945. In this period, the country was governed by the National Socialist German Workers Party, or "Nazi Party"

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)

I'm sure you don't want to argue that China isn't socialist.

I thought Fascism was extreme right wing. Communism is extreme left wing.
China is officially titled by the CIA as a Communist State (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), but of course it's a socialist country with a high GDP.

Lights

01-25-2008, 06:17 PM

WWII 40-72 million total casualties, very close to Mao's 40-70 million

Korean War 2.5- 3.5 million + Vietnam 2.5 -5 million, less than Hitler's 11 million

Pol pot's .75- 1.7 million is probably close to what we have done in the middle east lately.

That still leaves Stalin's 40 million.

I'd like to point out that ALL of these deaths were that the hands of governments, but the socialists win hands down for murder.

So basically, the only difference between a socialized system and a capitalistic system is who is killed. Extreme socialists kill their own. Extreme capitalists kill everyone else.

prometheus

01-25-2008, 06:27 PM

As far as I know Nazism is not Socialism. Even if it is "National Socialism" it is different from the Socialism we are talking here. I am not an expert on the topic, but I heard Socialism is aligned to the Left ideology and Nazim is an Ultra-Right Ideology. Hitler itself hated Socialists and communists.

My humble 2 cents.♪

Both believed in taking the production of the people to support social programs including socialized medicine. Hence, my grouping together for the discussion.

We (americans) are actually much closer to fascism than communism, since there are property deeds, however they're only an illusion of ownership because of the huge loses of ownership rights through regulatory takings.

Sylvanus

02-06-2008, 03:25 AM

I told Lights I didn't want to jump into this thread, but here I am. (Today's the beginning of my weekend so I won't be back until Saturday, my internet got shut off at home)

No offense, but did you read any of what I wrote?

I did, I thought it was great. More or less what I believe, just written better than I usually do.

As far as I know Nazism is not Socialism. Even if it is "National Socialism" it is different from the Socialism we are talking here. I am not an expert on the topic, but I heard Socialism is aligned to the Left ideology and Nazim is an Ultra-Right Ideology. Hitler itself hated Socialists and communists.

My humble 2 cents.♪

Hitler Speech:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

The truth is that fascism is another version of socialism, just like communism and modern day liberalism (not to be confused with classic liberalism). Anyone that disagrees with me, I've got "The Road to Serfdom" at home, and I'll be more than happy to quote whole chapters that more than prove my argument.

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State.... Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.

Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Fundamental Ideas

The greater the readiness to subordinate purely personal interests, the higher rises the ability to establish comprehensive communities.... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise of every truly human culture.

Adolf Hilter, Mein Kampf, Chapter 11, Ralph Manheim translation

What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly -- the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the priniciple: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.

Adolf Hilter, 1931

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving [sic] a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly... that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare... However, now there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.

Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995,
after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City

Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

Hillary Clinton

And Lights, don't tell me that this is a guilty by association fallacy. The core ideology is exactly the same.

So basically, the only difference between a socialized system and a capitalistic system is who is killed. Extreme socialists kill their own. Extreme capitalists kill everyone else.

The thing with the numbers from WW2 is that it wasn't the Capitalistic countries that started the war. I'm not sure what Japan was at the time, but Germany and Italy were definitely socialist. You can't blame the capitalists for all the deaths incurred defending themselves from imperialistic socialists. IMO, those deaths count toward us, not against us.

What has that to do with my arguments about rights? And why do you keep confounding political ideologies with socioeconomic beliefs? The Soviet Union, Old China, and Nazi Germany have absolutely no relevance to the discussion of socialized health care in America. I think the reality is totalitarian governments are bad for people. And that has nothing to do with discussing a socialized policy in a constitutional republic.

totalitarianism, a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen's duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society.
Totalitarianism. (n.d.). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 06, 2008, from Reference.com website:

Every time we as citizens cede our rights to the government, it becomes more and more totalitarian. Jeffersonian ideal government =0% totalitarian, Nazi Germany=95% totalitarian, Modern day America= 30% totalitarian, Modern day Canada=50% totalitarian,Modern day England=60% totalitarian.

Socialized Health Care will add about another 15-20% for America. My point is that the liberals of today with their socialist ideals paves the way for the way for the Lenins of tomorrow. Are their crimes as bad? No. They have not murdered tens of millions like some dictators have, but give them 50 or so years. See how many rights you have left. The real difference between the socialists of today and the socialist dictators is opportunity. Hillary's only chance of power is through a free election. Hitler grabbed power by appealing to the masses in a country already on the brink of revolution. Lenin's situation was similar. Give Clinton (Bill or Hillary, take your pick) the same opportunity that Lenin had and I have no doubt that the death toll will be in the millions.

Now for more good news about Sozialized medicine:
Colette Mills has been condemned to death by the NHS. We should pay attention to her story now, because one day it could very well be our own.

Mrs Mills, a former nurse who has breast cancer, was told back in September that her local hospital trust would not pay for Avastin, a drug which would double the time her disease was kept under control.

Colette, 58, and her husband Eric, said they would buy the Avastin out of their savings. Imagine their shock when they learned that, if they purchased the drug, the mother-of-two would have to pay for all her future NHS care - to the tune of £15,000 a month.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has ruled that patients can no longer combine private and NHS care as this creates a "two-tier" system.

How insanely pig-headed and petty. What a violation of those fundamental human rights which New Labour is so keen on for all except the thrifty and the law-abiding.

Can you believe a government which would rather stand by and see a good woman die an early death than allow some small private element into their ideologically pure but clapped-out system?

Apart from anything else, where does this leave Gordon Brown, who bought his frightening new smile from a posh dentist?

If the Prime Minister spontaneously combusts with rage during a Cabinet meeting, will the men in white coats refuse to take our gibbering leader away because he has participated in an unfair two-tier system?

Almighty Gord is forever boasting about widening choice in public services. So what choice did they give Colette? Bankruptcy or death. That's a hell of a decision.

It's the double standard that makes you so angry. NHS managers, who squandered £20 billion of public money on a computer system that doesn't work, say they can't afford life-sustaining drugs for folk like Colette and Eric, who have paid tax their entire lives.

Then they threaten to withhold free chemotherapy if the customer makes so bold as to use their own cash to alleviate their suffering. How dare they!

Crossover care between state and private has always worked well in the past. Grateful doctors say it frees up scarce resources.

Colette was doing the NHS a favour by offering to buy a drug that would be standard issue in a nation with more effective cancer treatment, which I'm sorry to say is every other developed country in Europe, except Poland.

If I were Colette Mills, I would have pulled the duvet over my head and wept with self-pity. Instead, with what strength and time she had left, Colette decided to fight this impractical, inhuman and almost certainly illegal policy.

She has taken South Tees Hospital NHS Trust and North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust to court to secure the right for future patients to "co-pay".

With ever more expensive superdrugs coming on the market, and the NHS working within tight budgets, our leaders are going to have to come up with a system that does not penalise people for wanting to contribute to their own survival.

This week Colette learned that it is probably too late for her. Legal proceedings have dragged on so long that, even if she wins the right to buy Avastin, it won't work.

The Millses were prepared to pay twice. Now they must pay a third time: with Colette's life.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lights

02-06-2008, 05:56 AM

Every time we as citizens cede our rights to the government, it becomes more and more totalitarian. Jeffersonian ideal government =0% totalitarian, Nazi Germany=95% totalitarian, Modern day America= 30% totalitarian, Modern day Canada=50% totalitarian,Modern day England=60% totalitarian.

Socialized Health Care will add about another 15-20% for America. My point is that the liberals of today with their socialist ideals paves the way for the way for the Lenins of tomorrow. Are their crimes as bad? No. They have not murdered tens of millions like some dictators have, but give them 50 or so years. See how many rights you have left. The real difference between the socialists of today and the socialist dictators is opportunity. Hillary's only chance of power is through a free election. Hitler grabbed power by appealing to the masses in a country already on the brink of revolution. Lenin's situation was similar. Give Clinton (Bill or Hillary, take your pick) the same opportunity that Lenin had and I have no doubt that the death toll will be in the millions.

Now for more good news about Sozialized medicine:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is a very interesting way of looking at government involvement. But I don't think you can have a percentage of totalitarianism as you seem to be suggesting. I would like to see all you objectivist/anarchist/libertarians go to some 3rd world African country and try to establish you Jeffersonian ideal. I mean, if its possible then you shouldn't have any problem. What's keeping you guys here?

Well I've certainly never supported the idea of a fully socialized system of health care. I like Obama's plan.

thod

02-06-2008, 06:21 AM

"We are a republic so we hold the majority at bay" Get real the majority do whatever they want. The majority couldnt care less what you want if the majority want to tear the constitution up then they can do so. They can get rid of democracy and have a king if they so wish. There is nothing the minority can do about it.

"We cede our rights to the governemnt" You dont cede anything you have no say in the matter. You do what you are told or we declare you a criminal.

Fantasy boyz living in a dream land. You dont matter what you think dont matter. You do what you are told.

Sylvanus

02-06-2008, 08:53 AM

That is a very interesting way of looking at government involvement. But I don't think you can have a percentage of totalitarianism as you seem to be suggesting. I would like to see all you objectivist/anarchist/libertarians go to some 3rd world African country and try to establish you Jeffersonian ideal. I mean, if its possible then you shouldn't have any problem. What's keeping you guys here?

Well I've certainly never supported the idea of a fully socialized system of health care. I like Obama's plan.

The first few words of our Constitution are "We the People". This implies that the government is formed by the people (obviously). In order to form this new government it requires the consent of the governed. I don't believe there are any 3rd world countries that are ready for that kind of commitment. If I could take a country completely uninhabited and only bring in the people that pass a certain bar I believe it could be done. Unfortunately, all the good land is taken, and not enough people pass my bar. That's why I'm here to convert.

"

"We cede our rights to the governemnt" You dont cede anything you have no say in the matter. You do what you are told or we declare you a criminal.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. -Thomas Jefferson

Currently the people have enough power that if we vote for the proper people, we can prevent our rights from being completely taken away. If that doesn't happen then...
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Lights

02-06-2008, 01:43 PM

The first few words of our Constitution are "We the People". This implies that the government is formed by the people (obviously). In order to form this new government it requires the consent of the governed. I don't believe there are any 3rd world countries that are ready for that kind of commitment. If I could take a country completely uninhabited and only bring in the people that pass a certain bar I believe it could be done. Unfortunately, all the good land is taken, and not enough people pass my bar. That's why I'm here to convert.

I love how you use the word "convert" instead of "educate" or "inform". It captures the religious element perfectly. :laugh:

You need to cause people to adopt a new faith. An untested, unproven, and fairly volatile faith. I wish you good luck with that. :thumbsup:

Of course, all this ultmately boils down to is you value different things that other people. Namely individualism and property rights. I'd thank you not to impose them on me, because I value living in a collectivists culture. But remember, you are free to leave at any moment, which seems fair to me because the collectivistic culture was here before you were even born. And considering how individualistic our culture is already, I think most Libertarians/Anarchists should be happy. Afterall, you can gather up in Montana and piss and moan there all you want.

prometheus

02-06-2008, 02:17 PM

Afterall, you can gather up in Montana and piss and moan there all you want.

No we will just repeal Article 1 of the Montana Constitution, while states like Kalifornia, adopt every socialist policy that comes their way. The funny part will be when the socialists states can't pay for their own programs and attempt to force the Free States to pay for them. Lucky we keep our powder dry up here.

If you do indeed live in Idaho, you yourself should move to the Socialist holy land of Kalifornia, with the exception of some of the Mormons in your state, Idahoans are more like me than you.

Has anyone seen the King of the Hill with the social worker Anthony AKA Twig Boy?

AgentofGaming

02-06-2008, 02:48 PM

Lights

02-06-2008, 02:48 PM

If you do indeed live in Idaho, you yourself should move to the Socialist holy land of Kalifornia, with the exception of some of the Mormons in your state, Idahoans are more like me than you.

Actually, they are mostly Republican here. And I can always find common ground with them, even as a Democrat, because we can laugh at the ultra libertarian Montanians. I mean, what kind of social rejects hide in the woods? :laugh:

quentin

02-06-2008, 10:10 PM

Good article on the Canadian health care system

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

prometheus

02-10-2008, 09:25 PM

Actually, they are mostly Republican here. And I can always find common ground with them, even as a Democrat, because we can laugh at the ultra libertarian Montanians. I mean, what kind of social rejects hide in the woods? :laugh:

The ones who are sick of being forced to pay for your Viagra, Preparation H, and hair plugs.
:laugh:

Lights

02-10-2008, 09:37 PM

The ones who are sick of being forced to pay for your Viagra, Preparation H, and hair plugs.
:laugh:

Really? Since when have you paid for those things? :rolleyes: Aside from buying them for yourself. :p

I've certainly never suggested that anyone should pay for those types of things.

prometheus

02-10-2008, 09:48 PM

Really? Since when have you paid for those things? :rolleyes:

You are employed as a government bureaucrat. Your "businesses" working capital is all government "grants" or government appropriations. The government doesn't produce anything, and is funded completely by taxes. Those taxes are taken from the real producers (the individuals) of this country. Up till a few years ago I was a producer being sucked dry. So, unless you have worked there less than 3 years, I (and other producers like me) have paid for everything you have consumed up to and including your industrial size Astroglide. :p

Lights

02-10-2008, 11:11 PM

You are employed as a government bureaucrat. Your "businesses" working capital is all government "grants" or government appropriations. The government doesn't produce anything, and is funded completely by taxes. Those taxes are taken from the real producers (the individuals) of this country. Up till a few years ago I was a producer being sucked dry. So, unless you have worked there less than 3 years, I (and other producers like me) have paid for everything you have consumed up to and including your industrial size Astroglide. :p

Well thanks prometheus! :laugh: Good point, I guess tax payers do pay for all my stuff. And I suppose I pay for all your stuff, because tax money also goes into the printing of money. Therefore all the cash you use was paid for by me and other tax payers. :thumbsup:

prometheus

02-11-2008, 06:09 AM

Well thanks prometheus! :laugh: Good point, I guess tax payers do pay for all my stuff. And I suppose I pay for all your stuff, because tax money also goes into the printing of money. Therefore all the cash you use was paid for by me and other tax payers. :thumbsup:

Ah, the flaw of the F; not using the T enough to realize just making colorful pieces of paper is not industry or production.

Another donation for your education fund:

Under a fiat money system, money ceases to be a commodity like others, and begins to have special and peculiar properties. Instead of focusing on production, investment and consumption, economic actors begin to attempt to divine the actions of government. Since actors can have foreknowledge of government actions in a way they cannot have of a market, this could lead to efforts to bribe, control or curry favor with the entities holding fiat power.

Fiat money is also closely tied to government borrowing for expenditures that do not have a clear social return, or which may have negative expectations, such as wars of conquest. Governments could pay for wars using fiat money, rather than in hard currency or specie, on the belief that the returns of war will be sufficient to pay promised notes, and that during wartime shortage and austerity, goods are not available in any case. This has seldom proven to be the case in the absence of strong inflationary controls. Instead, the usual cycle is for the value of fiat notes to trade at a significant discount to portable and stable forms of exchange, specifically those that will be tender regardless of the winning side in the conflict. A variation on this was the use of fiat occupation currency to place the burden on other areas.

Fiat money is also associated with attempts to control trade: If individuals possess notes which are not redeemable outside of the control of a government, the idea is that they will have to purchase preferentially within the boundaries of the nation, rather than importing; see Protectionism. It was David Hume who first argued that this merely leads to inflation by the quantity theory of money, even if the money is backed by specie.

Another aspect of fiat money is its relation to property rights.[citation needed] Many economists[attribution needed] argue that since a government that has control over its territory can requisition, confiscate or otherwise ban the use of specie within its boundaries, or suspend promise payments — as has often happened in the past— the presence of fiat manipulation of money is seen as being a signal that a government is intent on abrogating property rights for other purposes.

The opposing view[attribution needed] is that governments do not immediately intend to confiscate or ban the use of specie within its boundaries, nor reduce the property rights of its citizens. Instead, a government may be oblivious to the root cause of hyperinflation (excessive increase in the money supply). Worse still, a government may be aware of the cause, but choose to ignore the problem as it is not one that will come to light in its current political term.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lights

02-11-2008, 01:13 PM

Not another cut and paste job! :rolleyes: Have you no original ideas, prometheus. :laugh:

Although that really didn't combat my argument, it just shifted it from reality to your idealism.

denaria

02-11-2008, 02:34 PM

I worked during the nineties as an administrator, a projects accountant, in the UK's National Health Service. At the time central government had recently decided to make the NHS more market-orientated. As is usual in such circumstances the details of the plan had been left to the bureaucrats to devise, with the result that a cumbersome set of new procedures had to be implemented without any real increase in local autonomy. The result was predictably chaotic.

But far worse was the accumulation of costly operational clutter. This was a new flagship hospital, which had only been open for a matter of months. Yet half the control accounts didn't balance, the bank accounts weren't reconciled, money was being spent on all sorts of trappings which seemed to have no justification...and meanwhile the queues for treatment were monumental. The building itself had been designed for maximum maintenance expediture (they had to pay for people to abseil down the atrium to clean it). And as a sufferer from vertigo I hated having to go to the upper floors with their glass walled catwalks hovering in the void (which of course was where the mental health wards were situated...

Every year we had to go through a mindnumbing pricing exercise, in which every single medical treatment and surgical procedure had to be subjected to a full cost accounting. The results were then slung out and replaced with "last year plus x%" because everyone knew that the commissioning agencies wouldn't accept anything different. Once I was told to go to another hospital and study their pricing procedures which I was promised were rational and sensible and should be adopted by us. I sat through their turgid presentation, and said, "What's that?", pointing to an unexplained item.

"That's our presentation factor", I was told.

"You mean, procedural difficulty?", I asked. "I thought you covered that back there."

"Err, no, more a sort of pricing adjustment...."

"You mean, that's how you get back to what the payer will accept?"

"Err, yes."

So much for rational and sensible - except insofar as it's sensible to charge what people are prepared to pay. Having done an economics degree I did ask about Marginal Costing...and was laughed out of the room, well almost.

The hospital was situated in a part of London with a relatively large gay population, so an extra pot of money had been flung at it to cover HIV and AIDS. Part of the year end procedure was to engage in a creative accounting exercise to justify the money (actually, the money plus 5%, the bureaucrats' dream outcome). So we roped in costs for the most basic of hygiene procedures on the basis that ours had to be extra specially good (probably they were extra specially abysmal).

One year there had been a lot of press agitation about management costs and so every operational unit had to make a special report to Central Command detailing their spend. I did it, as best I could, from the lousy figures available (nothing reconciled, of course). Two months later the Chief Executive is being interviewed on the telly, pontificating about how he manages to keep his management costs so low. Obviously, by simply not accounting for them - we had two separate firms of management consultants camped out in the hospital at the time.

Thing is, all this sort of nonsense didn't accumulate from the mere fact of being in a socialist system, it evolved because some bureaucrats were making decisions about how to spend other people's money. As said bureaucrats acquired status and promotion with the increase in the size of the budget they controlled, there was no incentive for them to be efficient. And I suspect this is the same with any large monolithic organisation, be it a national health service or a huge insurance provider, or an enormous city hospital. My only idea for improvement would be to replace the general hospitals with smaller single- or dual-speciality units with an absolute maximum permitted monetary turnover of say $100 million - 12 months over and the unit has to split. But I don't pretend that I have any real answers.

prometheus

02-11-2008, 07:11 PM

Not another cut and paste job! :rolleyes: Have you no original ideas, prometheus. :laugh:

Although that really didn't combat my argument, it just shifted it from reality to your idealism.

Feel free (like me) to use other peoples work to back up your thoughts. Unless you think you are the smartest person on the face of the earth and none could help your "I feel this way" debate style. :p

I pointed out your argument that thinking just firing up the money presses is production will lead to a Zimbabwe style nightmare, it is a very common bureaucratic belief, though.

You want to need one of these to buy a cheeseburger here?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AgentofGaming

02-11-2008, 07:17 PM

heh in post-WWI Germany they printed so much money to cover Versailles, bread took barrels of cash to buy but how does that factor into health care?

I'm pretty sure he knows printing money leads to inflation.

prometheus

02-11-2008, 07:20 PM

heh in post-WWI Germany they printed so much money to cover Versailles bread took barrels of cash to buy but how does that factor into health care?

When a government has a fiat style monetary system, and the countries real production (not bureaucratic jobs) can not support it's handout programs (such as health care) the central bank will make up the difference with inflation, that will lead to those kind on monetary instruments pictured.

thod

02-13-2008, 09:24 AM

JusVisiting

02-14-2008, 06:11 AM

Not really sure yet. I am still thinking about this so I expect my views to evolve with time. I would be for universal health care in the US as long as certain requirements are met. I dislike the idea of someone who does not pay into the system getting a free ride. I think there would need to be a limit on how much each person could take from the system. Each person would be responsible for how they spent the money and where they spent the money. It would be funded by taxes. It would also be up to the business to provide an extra type of insurance for their workers; a sort of premium health care. A person could also buy this premium insurance if they wanted to.

There would be a strong emphasis on preventative care and a requirement that people attend a certain amount of classes on health a year or every couple years. Like CE credits in the health field. They wouldn't be long classes, maybe two or three hours, and people would be able to choose from a list of classes. I think there should be websites where people can work as their own doctor; understanding what the difference in symptoms are between a head cold and pneumonia. Practical, step-by-step information on how to get better. It sickens me that people have become such babies they go to the doctor for everything. There is no reason to go to a doctor to have a cyst drained. I think part of why we spend so much on health care in the US is that we go to the doctor at the drop of a hat.

The problem is that a lot of people in the US are overweight or obese. I don't care what anyone says 35% BF is not healthy. Consider a place like Japan where people smoke like chimneys and yet they have some of the longest lived people in the world. They also have one of the healthiest diets and lowest rate of obesity. I think knowledge is a big issue because a lot of people have no idea what to do to lose weight. I remember helping this 50 year old friend of my mom and she did not have a clue how to read nutrition labels. She was shocked when she found out the normal amount of cookies she ate came out to 450 calories -- just for a snack! I think this would have to addressed if there was going to be something like universal health care.

Once a person ran out of their allotment for life there would be no more government help. I'm sorry but even buffets have a time limit. I also think that there needs to be a stop to this saving every premature baby and keeping people on life support for all of time. I believe every life is special but I also think it needs to be balanced out by what is feasible over the longterm. But really I wouldn't support any of this unless our population was brought under 220 million and immigration was curtailed to 200,000 a year (with a mandatory culturally fair IQ test given and only those with an IQ of 115 and above admitted).

stasis

02-16-2008, 04:37 AM

The discussion about colonialism and the Native Americans has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
The discussion about what the dollar is doing has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Sylvanus

02-17-2008, 11:33 PM

Individualism is the myth. The medieval peasants didn't live on scattered farms. They lived in villages. The isolated farm is too open to bandits. If you injure yourself you need help. You can lift a beam with a man on each end but not alone. People have never been individualists they have always been collectivist, the collective being the village. It would be far easier for you bring up your kids if you could have the other villagers watch them while you get things done. You hurt yourself with this lonely existence. You cant learn to do every job yourself. Its better to do what you do well and let someone else do their thing. Why learn about medicine when you have a wise woman to do it. Within the village you have all skills.

When you want something like an axe you cant smelt the ore yourself. The process of mining ore, making charcoal, building a furnace etc is very specialized. Its not worth doing for a single axe head. So you have villages that do just that. They trade with the farming villages. You have others that move the axe heads from producers to consumers. So a larger scale economy evolves.

Since the bandits cant attack a village they group together and can attack a village now. Whereas the feudal lord wouldn't send his men out against a single bandit it is worth his time to track down a group. The village needs to pay him taxes so he can pay his mens wages.

This idea that sitting in a log cabin in the woods doing everything yourself is not practical. It has never existed, not anywhere. Groups are always more beneficial, if you are more talented than the rest of the group you may contribute more than others. Yet still you gain. To cut yourself off and try to go it alone leaves you impoverished.

Individualism is not about living solely for the individual, what you seem to be referring to is egoism. Individualism is about the individual making decisions for themselves, not letting the state do it for them. This doesn't mean that they are above living in a community, on the contrary; most individualists know that there is value in that community. You are correct in asserting that there are safety in numbers, and also that a person will have a better quality of life if everyone specializes and can provide their own product or service to the community. Nothing about that is counter to the beliefs of Individualism. What is central to the belief is that each person can decide what service or product they will provide.

Occasionally there are too many people providing too much of one thing, the value goes down and their profits go down. So some of them decide they will be better off doing something else. That's called capitalism (the dumbed down version of it).

prometheus

02-27-2008, 04:50 PM

Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.

Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour pledge.

The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 999 calls.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This sickening story shows that socialized medicine is not a forward-step for a nation.

From The Scotsman:

A 36 year-old Scots mother elected to have her breasts removed and a hysterectomy after being told she would have to wait at least two years for the results of genetic tests to discover if she had an increased risk of cancer.

Oonagh Wilson, who has been waiting now for almost four years to find out if her family faces a greater risk of breast cancer, yesterday spoke of her anger and frustration at the delays.

A backlog of women waiting for results has been blamed on lack of funding and trained staff, changes to the way services are delivered and delays in getting licences to carry out the tests, which have to be obtained from genetics watchdogs.

Politicians yesterday described the situation as "inhuman" and "shocking". Mrs Wilson said she has been left in limbo, not knowing whether her two children and other family members were carrying a cancer "timebomb."

After my last physical, I had a test done because of a slightly irregular reading regarding my liver. I got my results back (I was fine) one week later, paid for in full by my "greedy" insurance company.

Of course, if Scotland had someone like Hillary Clinton in charge of health care, things would be much better in Caledonia.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In 1918, the Soviet Union’ s universal “cradle-to-grave” health-care coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine, was introduced by the Communist government of Vladimir Lenin. “Right to health” was introduced as one of the “constitutional rights” of Soviet citizens. Other socioeconomic “rights” on the “mass-enticing” socialist menu included the right to vacation, free dental care, housing, and a clean and safe environment. As in other fields, the provision of health care was planned and delivered through a special ministry. The Ministry of Health, through its regional Directorates of Health, would pool and distribute centrally provided resources for delivery of medical and sanitary services to the entire population.

The “official” vision of socialists was clean, clear, and simple: all needed care would be provided on an equal basis to the entire population by the state-owned and state-managed health industry. The entire cost of medical services was socialized through the central budget. The advantages of this system were proclaimed to be that a fully socialized health-care system elimi nates “waste” that stems to “unnecessary duplication and parallelism” (i.e., competition) while providing full coverage of all health-care problems from birth until death.

But as we have learned from our own separate experiences, the Russian health care system is neither modern nor efficient.

In contrast to the impression created by the liberal American media, health-care institutions in Russia were at least fifty years behind the average U.S. level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration which paralyzed the system. The part of Russia’s GNP destined for medical needs is negligible[1] and, according to our estimates; is less than 2.5 percent (compared to 14 percent in the United States, 11 percent in Canada, 8 percent in the U.K., etc.).

Polyclinics and hospitals in big cities have extremely large numbers of beds allotted for patients reflecting typical megalomania of bureaucratic planning. The number of beds in big cities would usually range from 800 to 5,000 beds. Despite the difference in average length of stay, less than one-half were utilized. In the United States hospital stays for surgery are three to seven days; in Russia stays average three weeks. American mothers typically leave the hospital a day or two after giving birth. New mothers in Russia remain for at least a week. It was explained that the length of stay was necessary due to unavailability of follow-up care after hospitalization. A physician was reluctant to discharge a patient before the majority of healing had occurred. In addition, there was no financial incentive for early discharge, as reimbursement was directly related to number of “patient-days,” not the necessity for those days.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work

By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:30 PM PT

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. As a Canadian, I had soaked up the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people.

My health care prejudices crumbled on the way to a medical school class. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.

Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care.
Dr. Jacques Chaoulli faces the media in Montreal in June 2005, after he got Canada's Supreme Court to strike down a Quebec law banning private insurance for services covered under Medicare — a decision the rocked the country's universal health care system.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli faces the media in Montreal in June 2005, after he got Canada's Supreme Court to strike down a Quebec law banning private insurance for services covered under Medicare — a decision the rocked the country's universal health care system.

I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic — with a three-year wait list; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

Government researchers now note that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12% of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

These problems are not unique to Canada — they characterize all government-run health care systems.

Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled — 48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren't available. And so on.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike the countries in the study that outperformed Canada--Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France, for example--Canada outlaws most private health care.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ssfanatic

02-27-2008, 05:43 PM

Heres an idea my proffesor shared with me when i asked...

There should be a national health care. People, to receive it, must sign a contract. The catch is, in the contract it states that you can only drink a certain amount of alcohol, and not use any tobacco products along with other strict guidelines.

You also must receive at least 3 physicals a year, in order to prevent spread of disease that is unknown in your body and to make sure you are abiding by the contract.

If you break the contract your service is terminated and you are fined.

Then yo have the question what kind of doctor would want to join this plan. They wouldnt make any money. well...
It would work the same way the military does. The government would pay for your med school, and once you graduated, you owe them your services for a certain amount of time. 5+ years.

I realize there are holes, but over all, it sounds pretty solid.

prometheus

02-27-2008, 08:34 PM

I realize there are holes, but over all, it sounds pretty solid.

Sounds very THX1138 to me. No thanks. If you feel you need someone telling you how live a healthy life, PM me your daily agenda and I'll tell you what I'll forbid you to do.

coffeeloverfreak

02-27-2008, 11:03 PM

A couple of notes on the article posted by prometheus:

Brain Drain: This is a major issue in Canadian healthcare. Doctors get low-cost, high-quality training in Canada thanks to our inexpensive university system. Then, they have high amounts of freedom of mobility thanks to their degree. They can move wherever the conditions are most favourable.

The result? Doctors from Quebec brain-drain to Ontario, for higher pay and better working conditions. Not to mention the language requirements (pass a French exam or you're out, no matter if you're a world-renowned researcher or not). Hence the critical doctor shortage in Quebec, where you basically have to mortgage your firstborn to get a GP.

Doctors from Ontario and elsewhere in Canada brain-drain to the United States, attracted by the tempting salaries and conditions of the private system. It may not be better for patients, but it's sure as hell better for doctors.

Doctors from elsewhere in the world can't practice in Canada, due to huge amounts of red tape in getting degrees and credentials recognized.

Canada may spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare for lesser results, but many of those other countries don't have a huge neighbour right next door that's more than happy to recruit our doctors to the land of better salaries, lower taxes, and cushy jobs in the private system that don't require service in the outlying regions, or silly bureaucratic red tape. Running a system with the brain drain challenge is not easy.

Waiting times: Yes, it's a major issue, especially in some sectors. But the government has made big inroads in the past few years. These long waits and overcrowded emergency rooms are not the norm; they're anecdotal evidence. And while it's true that this varies largely from place to place, case to case, it's not nearly as gloom and doom as things seem.

Role of private sector: We're seeing more and more of it in the past few years. Private clinics operating outside of Medicare have been introduced to work in parallel to the public system. They'll never take its place, of course. But they exist, for better or for worse. And people who can afford them are often happy to use their services, and pay richly for them.

Insurance: We pay more tax, yes, but we pay much less in health insurance. And virtually no-one is bankrupted by a health emergency. It just doesn't happen here. The higher taxes, of course, drive out many of the wealthiest citizens and corporations, as they set up shop in friendlier tax environments. The ebb and flow of money. Pros versus cons? You betcha.

The challenges ahead: The population is getting older and the workforce is getting more cash-strapped. It's pretty clear to most people here that the system, as-is, isn't sustainable. We're going to start hearing a lot more about diversionary healthcare in the next few years. We're going to need more tertiary care facilities, more palliative care facilities, more hybrid nursing home/residence facilties - public and private - and more home care access. And the public prescription drug plan is going to need an overhaul as well. Now is a very good time to get into the healthcare sector in any of these fields, as demand is hugely going to outweigh supply and there will have to be a role for the private sector to play.

Conclusion? Our system is broken. It has a zillion things wrong with it. It needs a major overhaul. And it can't survive in a "pure" fashion. But in principle, universal healthcare has done far more good than harm. It's a principle worth fighting for.

prometheus

03-02-2008, 10:19 PM

Strange, as long you are disagreeing with me, then I know I am on the right track. :p The fact that we actually agree on anything just means that hell must have frozen over.

I was actually shocked to read what you wrote. What about all the environmental, and socialized health care lobbyists.

Lights

03-02-2008, 10:28 PM

I was actually shocked to read what you wrote. What about all the environmental, and socialized health care lobbyists.

I'm not an advocate for socialized health care as you seem to keep forgetting. I just want universal health care which is not synonymous with socialized health care. Of course, as is clear with you and AA, anyone who wants any level of government involvement is a "pinky socialist commie", so perhaps I waste my time repetitively reiterating that point. :rolleyes:

There are other avenues open to special interests groups.

Sylvanus

03-02-2008, 11:50 PM

I'm not an advocate for socialized health care as you seem to keep forgetting. I just want universal health care which is not synonymous with socialized health care. Of course, as is clear with you and AA, anyone who wants any level of government involvement is a "pinky socialist commie", so perhaps I waste my time repetitively reiterating that point. :rolleyes:

There are other avenues open to special interests groups.

We already have Universal Health Care. Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it. It's open to everyone, no discrimination. Sounds pretty universal to me.

Lights

03-03-2008, 12:17 AM

We already have Universal Health Care. Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it. It's open to everyone, no discrimination. Sounds pretty universal to me.

I don't know what country you are living in but here in the US we have a health care system where 40 million are uninsured because they can't afford it and of those who can afford it, many lose their savings, houses, or even go bankrupt when they fall on misfortune because the insurance companies refuse to pay or the insured can't make the deductibles that they had to settle for in their in order to afford any insurance. That is not universal health care, and you are hopelessly oblivious to the way things are if you think otherwise.

And it does discriminate based upon prior health conditions.

The market anarchists are like flies on this forum. You swat one, and another buzzes on by to take its place. :rolleyes: And of course, none of them have a clue on how things work in the real world. Which is annoying as hell when they try to comment on issues of which they clearly have no knowledge. It's pure, blatant ignorance, and even my patience is wearing thin.

Sylvanus

03-03-2008, 12:47 AM

I don't know what country you are living in but here in the US we have a health care system where 40 million are uninsured because they can't afford it and of those who can afford it, many lose their savings, houses, or even go bankrupt when they fall on misfortune because the insurance companies refuse to pay or the insured can't make the deductibles that they had to settle for in their in order to afford any insurance. That is not universal health care, and you are hopelessly oblivious to the way things are if you think otherwise.

Is it because they can't afford it, or because they refuse to give up things like their cable TV, fast food and SUV's so they can pay for it. I know plenty of people who make less than half what I do but have nicer things then I do because they don't think they it's worth it. If their kid has the slightest thing wrong with them they take it to the ER because it's free. Universal health care won't fix anything. It will merely spread the cost of health care out more evenly (through taxes), while simultaneously driving up the prices through massive ineffeciency (more taxes) and lowering quality.

You think that the poor can barely make it now? Wait until your dreams are realized and taxes are so high that the poor can barely keep food on their table. They can't get treatment because the lines are so long that they are on a waiting list for emergency care. The middle class and rich can at least afford to see private doctors, so they at least won't be completely screwed, but will be at a drastically reduced standard of living. Yay! Socialist paradise. Where can I sign up?

Lights

03-03-2008, 12:57 AM

Is it because they can't afford it, or because they refuse to give up things like their cable TV, fast food and SUV's so they can pay for it. I know plenty of people who make less than half what I do but have nicer things then I do because they don't think they it's worth it. If their kid has the slightest thing wrong with them they take it to the ER because it's free.

It's clear now. You are a bigot. You honestly think all poor people are like that? I can't believe the level of your ignorance. It isn't even worth my time to argue against somebody who begins an argument against all those who are too poor to afford health care with this kind of blatant prejudice. You sicken me! :yuck:

I'm not saying those kind of people don't exist, but it's clear that your personal prejudice has blinded you so much that you can't see that the majority of those who are uninsured are single mothers, elderly who have worked their entire lives and are on fixed income, and people who have fallen on hard times. You have my eternal pity.

prometheus

03-03-2008, 01:03 AM

The market anarchists are like flies on this forum. You swat one, and another buzzes on by to take its place. :rolleyes: And of course, none of them have a clue on how things work in the real world. Which is annoying as hell when they try to comment on issues of which they clearly have no knowledge. It's pure, blatant ignorance, and even my patience is wearing thin.

Here is what happens in the REAL WORLD with price controls. Wake up!
You are the ignorant one if you think a person can just wave a magic wand and say "here are some freebies my hippy friends". You should move there!

Zimbabwe police arrest at least 11 for overcharging (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
More than 11 company officials dealing in flour, maize meal and cement have been arrested in Zimbabwe for overcharging, a newspaper reported Sunday. The arrests comes as the state-appointed National Incomes and Pricing Commission steps up its campaign to weed out "devious business practices," said the state-controlled Sunday Mail.

"I can say with respect to cement and flour, in Harare we have so far arrested five players," NIPC chairman Godwills Masimirembwa was quoted as saying.

"With respect to (maize) meal, a number of millers have been picked up. I believe they are in excess of six."

Commodities like cement, flour and the staple maize meal are strictly controlled by President Robert Mugabe's government. But in a country where inflation is currently running at more than 100,000 per cent, retailers say they have to hike their prices almost on a daily basis to remain in business.

Last year the government tried to force down inflation by ordering shops and businesses to slash prices by at least 50 per cent. But the move backfired, as factories stopped producing and shops stopped stocking goods.

"What is clear is that some major players in business want to charge as they want," said Masimirembwa.

"Fortunately, we are now dealing with the millers who are involved in this practice. We have the evidence, but I will not reveal names at this stage because the police are handling the matter."

Last year more than 23,000 people were arrested countrywide for flouting price controls. Many were fined or sentenced to long hours of community service cleaning government buildings.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

MONEY that is being used to prop up President Robert Mugabe’s brutal regime, keep his military onside and win over voters in the run-up to Zimbabwe’s elections this month is being printed by a German company.

With inflation topping 100,000% and the highest value 10m Zimbabwe dollar note worth just 20p, heavily guarded planeloads of banknotes are flying into Harare almost every day to keep up with the demand.

Documents obtained by The Sunday Times show the Munich company Giesecke & Devrient (G&D) is receiving more than €500,000 (£382,000) a week for delivering bank notes at the astonishing rate of Z$170 trillion a week.

“The regime is surviving by printing money,” said Martin Rupiya, professor of war and security studies at the University of Zimbabwe. “At this stage there is no other way.”

2nd Largest City in Zimbabwe "Runs Out of Money" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Service delivery has collapsed in Zimbabwe's second largest city, Bulawayo, after local authorities recently announced that the municipality was insolvent and unable to cater to the needs of its almost two million residents. The council could not pay salaries in January and employees have been on a go-slow since then.

Refuse collection and maintenance have come to a halt: repairs to potholes and burst sewers have been affected, as has the procurement of medicines for council clinics.
"The entire city is stinking - as you can see, all this rubbish piling up has not been collected for two months now and we risk a cholera outbreak very soon ... the situation is worse when it rains, as the garbage is blocking the drainage system," complained Nathan Mlilo, a hardware store owner, pointing to a heap of rubbish outside his shop on the city's busy Main Street.
Health services have also been disrupted and drug shortages were evident at most of the council clinics IRIN visited. "Patients come here for diagnosis only, and are then referred to private clinics, while those without money and medical aid schemes are told to go back home," said a nurse at Mzilikazi clinic, in one of the city's high-density suburbs.

A shortage of ambulances is also impairing medical services: only two out of 40 are in use because the spares needed to repair the others are either unobtainable or unaffordable.
The cash shortage has left the municipality unable to purify enough water for Bulawayo's requirements and it has had to resort to water cuts, meaning it has been turning off supplies to various parts of the city at different times.

The city needs five metric tonnes of aluminium sulphate daily to purify raw water from its five supply dams at a cost of Z$14 billion (about US$933 at the parallel market rate of Z$15million to US$1). "Very soon we will run out of the chemicals and we will have no choice except to stop water supplies to residents," Nyathi said.

It's truly amazing how much impact those tiny little pieces of paper can have on the most basic aspects of human existence. :thumbsdown:

Lights

03-03-2008, 01:06 AM

prometheus

03-03-2008, 01:10 AM

Who the hell was talking about price controls? Earth to Prometheus! :laugh:

Look at Syl up there making the same prejudiced arguments you were making a few weeks ago. You Market Anarchists are painting an interesting picture for me of the kind people you really are.

Here is your damned health care!

Yay for socialized medicine. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)HARARE Central hospital's neonatal unit is a death bed. Many mothers walk in there with their children alive but leave with corpses," a senior doctor at the hospital said last week.

"I tell you those who come out alive only do so by the grace of God -- nothing to thank the specialist or nurse for."
"This is how serious it has become. I am not surprised anymore to find at least 10 dead children in the tray every day, at the beginning of my shift, because the neonatal unit at this hospital is essentially dead and nobody wants to do anything about fixing things in this country."

The Standard spoke to the senior doctor while following up a report that ten babies in incubators had died after the nationwide power cuts on Saturday a week ago.
The hospital has been operating without a neonatalogist, a specialist in illnesses affecting new-born babies, since 2003.

"In the absence of this specialist, you have a critically ill child and an inexperienced nurse or doctor with absolutely no idea what is going on and how to save the child. This is why children are dying like flies here at this hospital," said a source.
The three incubators have reportedly outlived their life span, although they are functional. So, if there are ten seriously ill premature babies, seven will die.
"We tried our best to engage the health minister (David Parirenyatwa) and he has done nothing. He is not willing to trade in his Mercedes Benz for three incubators that could save hundreds of lives."

Parirenyatwa said yesterday: "What I will tell you officially is that Harare Hospital's neonatal unit is continually being looked at for upgrading. I think the staff there are doing the best they can."

Lights

03-03-2008, 01:12 AM

Here is your damned health care!

Yay for socialized medicine. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I'm not an advocate for socialized health care as you seem to keep forgetting. I just want universal health care which is not synonymous with socialized health care. Of course, as is clear with you and AA, anyone who wants any level of government involvement is a "pinky socialist commie", so perhaps I waste my time repetitively reiterating that point. :rolleyes:

There are other avenues open to special interests groups.

Thanks for proving my point countless times. I've beat you so many times prometheus that it isn't even fun anymore.

Sylvanus

03-03-2008, 01:17 AM

It's clear now. You are a bigot. You honestly think all poor people are like that? I can't believe the level of your ignorance. It isn't even worth my time to argue against somebody who begins an argument against all those who are too poor to afford health care with this kind of blatant prejudice. You sicken me! :yuck:

I'm not saying those kind of people don't exist, but it's clear that your personal prejudice has blinded you so much that you can't see that the majority of those who are uninsured are single mothers, elderly who have worked their entire lives and are on fixed income, and people who have fallen on hard times. You have my eternal pity.

I have no contempt for the poor, only for people who make dumb decisions. I have no problem helping these sorts of people out, I do have a problem with being forced to pay for it though. How did these people survive before the New Deal? Did we just cast them aside hoping for the best while doing nothing for them? No. There are a multitude of charities and churches now, and even more back then that would support these people in need.

prometheus

03-03-2008, 01:43 AM

As in many other former colonies across Africa, Zimbabwean independence created high hopes for the future and a powerful desire to eradicate many aspects of the colonial past. Health care inequalities were given top priority by the new
government. An ambitious program of health care reform promised the people of the country access to basic health care needs near to their place of residence without having to travel long distances.

You obliviously have no idea what will happen if your pie in the sky hopes of "free" health care comes true. There it is for you in black and white. I just hope you some day live to see it. But the economy crashing and you obviously having placed all your confidence in the nanny state you will more than likely starve if this recession continues the way it's heading.

Are you are getting some government handout to pay for your education, or are you actually earning it?

prometheus added to this post, 1 minutes and 47 seconds later...

He has? In what context? :stunned:

Are you going to ever contribute anything besides some sort of sideline cheer leading?

Maybe you can answer this since Lights refuses to.

I'd like to visit your corner of lala land sometime. "Universal health" care is just a "progressive" spin for Socialized health care. You tell me what portions of the free market are left, after it's "universalized".

Sylvanus

03-03-2008, 02:10 AM

Dude, you can't take back your words. Anyone can go read it. You are prejudiced, I feel sorry for you, get over yourself.

Ok, you're right. I hate everyone that is too slutty to keep their legs shut when they shouldn't be having kids, or too lazy or old to produce anything of worth. If I only had my way we could pull them from the federal teat, and they can starve and die like they deserve. I feel much better now that I have that off my chest.

Or rephrased in a more politic way. I think people should be accountable for their actions.

prometheus

03-03-2008, 02:21 AM

Or rephrased in a more politic way. I think people should be accountable for their actions.

What about the children. ;)

thod

03-03-2008, 03:33 AM

You obliviously have no idea what will happen if your pie in the sky hopes of "free" health care comes true. There it is for you in black and white. I just hope you some day live to see it. But the economy crashing and you obviously having placed all your confidence in the nanny state you will more than likely starve if this recession continues the way it's heading.

Things will carry on as normal. Free health care wont create starvation it will prevent suffering.

Yesterday fell of a bicycle whilst going down hill. I rolled out of it but my shoulder hurt like hell when I got up. I picked up the bike and walked the rest of the way home. I was pretty deformed in the shoulder. The accident and emergency dept at the local hospital X rayed me and showed a broken collar bone near the shoulder. I got one shoulder 3 inchs lower than the other and huge lump in the trapezius muscle where the bone end is embedded. It wont heal by itself so tomorrow I go get it plated and screwed together, which is an overnight stay.

You cant tell when something is going to happen no matter how fit you are. For me its all free treatment. In the US I would be left deformed and weakened since it will not heal. What a waste to lose your workers in their prime, unable to repair simple things like broken bones, because they cannot afford surgical fees. From a systemic perspective you hurt your economy. I cant drive to work without a collar bone so I produce nothing.
With free health care I am repaired and back to production.

Think of it like a farmer treating injured animals in his flock. He has an interest to keep his animal well. The people in the US are treated worse than farm animals with no means to afford their own treatment and others unwilling to fund it.

Theodoric

03-03-2008, 05:14 PM

Think of it like a farmer treating injured animals in his flock. He has an interest to keep his animal well. The people in the US are treated worse than farm animals with no means to afford their own treatment and others unwilling to fund it.

Funny how you compare this to a great big farm. Sounds like in your view that people are merely livestock that exist to benefit their governmental task masters.

Granted, it would make sense to actually allow the elderly to lose health care and subsequently die and not artificially extend their lifespans. Fiscally, why would you keep around an unproductive component in your system? It might not be a moral decision, but since governments and corporations are not moral entities, they are legal ones that are only created by laws, they do not have the precedent to make moral decisions.

Actually, your idea sounds more like a slave system. And socialists point to many third world countries for gross violations of human rights.

The 40 Million uninsured in the US accounts for less than 15% of the population. A significant portion of that group are the so called 'free riders', people that forgo purchasing health care not because they can't, but because they see it as being a frivolous expense that could be better spent elsewhere.

"27% of the uninsured have incomes above 300% of poverty, with one-in-ten (11%) uninsured above 500% FPL. That the uninsured comprise non-trivial percentages of middle and upper income individuals is surprising. Those with incomes above 300% of poverty should generally find employer insurance affordable. Data from employers shows that average single coverage premiums for employer sponsored insurance represent 2.0% of income at 300% FPL, and average family coverage premiums represent 4.7% of income for a family of four at 300% FPL (with a higher percentage for smaller families)."

The majority of the uninsured are actually younger workers, not the elderly like some people claim. Only 1% of the uninsured are 65+, and only 7% are between the ages of 55 - 64.

"This result is likely due to the correlation between age and income as younger adults are more likely to have lower incomes than older adults. Although children and the elderly have the highest likelihood of being below 200% of poverty, government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly result in those groups having the lowest uninsured rates."

However, the elderly put a much higher strain on health care providers because they are more at risk, even though they pay the same as their younger, healthier counterparts who are not at as high of a risk. But because of guaranteed issue laws, which require insurers to sell insurance at the same rate to all potential customers, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions. This has done nothing but increase prices for everyone across the board.

And for those that would attempt to point to race and racist practices, here's a fun statistic:

"The uninsured are more likely to be white than other races or ethnicities, comprising about half of the uninsured population (48%)"

Of the uninsured 21% are non citizens that do not pay taxes or contribute to the economy. These outsiders either will not purchase insurance for fear of being caught, fined, and deported or are unwilling to because they know they can get free coverage at hospitals, sticking the citizens with the bill in the form of higher premiums and taxes.

Lastly, over 50% of the population that are uninsured are either non full time workers or in non working families. So it is not because of employers not issuing insurance to their employees but overwhelmingly due to the fact that they do not work, and therefore can't be eligible for employer provided health care. And this is not due to them being unable to work, because the disabled and retired already receive free health care from the government.

When you take into account that significant portions of the uninsured population are either middle and upper class whites that forgo insurance due to it being a fiscally poor decision for them, illegal immigrants, and non working individuals there turns out to be very few people that want insurance but can't afford it.

Sylvanus

03-03-2008, 11:32 PM

Can you link your source please Theo? That's some good information.

yondyr

03-04-2008, 06:29 AM

yes it is Sylvanus and instead of presented as a link or mumbo jumbo, well explained and cohesive. For which this brain is very grateful.

Lights

03-04-2008, 08:35 AM

Always be suspicious of people who don't provide a source. His source was probably...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which Theo poorly demonstrates in order to build a case by selectively choosing the statistics he represents. I highly recommend that people read it through so you can see what I mean. I was astonished at some of my misconceptions but the statistics do illustrate the link between income and employment to insurance.

The 45.8 million uninsured are more likely to be poor and low income than higher income. Over half of the uninsured are below 200% of poverty, with 25% below the poverty line and 28% between 100% and 199% of poverty.

200% of poverty is about $20,000 for a single person household. 300% of poverty is about $30,000 for a single person household. 74% of uninsured are below 300% of poverty.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What he also forgets to mention is that elderly are usually covered by Social Security and Medicare, which may or may not provide adequate coverage and which are paid for by...Taxpayers! Not a strong argument to make when you leaning away from government ran health care.

He also completely misrepresents the racial stats. Here is the racial breakdown of the US.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Compare it to the percentages of uninsured.

Uninsured Stats.

White 48%
Black 15%
Hispanic 30%
American Indian 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 5%

Clearly, even though half of the uninsured are white, 66% of the people in the country were white in the country in 2004-2005. Translation: if you are white then you are far more likely to be insured, than if you are say...Hispanic. Even in the study it acknowledges...

However, the uninsured are disproportionately Hispanic to a significant degree. Hispanics represent 14% of U.S. residents but comprise 30% of the uninsured. The higher uninsured rate for Hispanics is not associated with higher poverty levels than other groups — the poverty rate for Hispanics is slightly lower than for African-Americans, 22.2% vs. 24.9% respectively.

Theo, if your case is so strong, why would you misrepresent the statistics and interject your personal opinion so much? I've lost my respect for you. To twist the stats in such a manner by only reporting details which would paint a picture to support your case is in poor taste for intellectual discussion.

And we are still only talking about the uninsured. Not the thousands of people who lose their savings, homes, etc. when they fall on hard times even though they are insured.

Theodoric

03-04-2008, 10:21 AM

Always be suspicious of people who don't provide a source. His was probably...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That would be the source.

Which Theo poorly demonstrates in order to build a case by selectively choosing the statistics he represents. I highly recommend that people read it through so you can see what I mean.

"The 45.8 million uninsured are more likely to be poor and low income than higher income. Over half of the uninsured are below 200% of poverty, with 25% below the poverty line and 28% between 100% and 199% of poverty."

However, the gross majority of these people would qualify for government subsidized health care, such as Medicaid or the Gateway program due to the fact that they are below the poverty line. Also, it is fairly safe to assume that the majority of those under the poverty line that are uninsured are those that are not working, and therefore unable to qualify for employer provided insurance.

200% of poverty is about $20,000 for a single person household. 300% of poverty is about $30,000 for a single person household. 74% of uninsured are below 300% of poverty.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What he also forgets to mention is that elderly are usually covered by Social Security and Medicare, which may or may not provide adequate coverage.

But they are at least covered. I thought we were discussing the uninsured, not those that are under insured. Also, Social Security has nothing to do with insurance, it is merely a source of income for those that are not working and retired. And please point me to a study that shows that Medicare does not adequately provide coverage to the elderly. If it does not, wouldn't that make a case against government provided care under a single payer system?

He also completely misrepresents the racial stats. Here is the racial breakdown of the US.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Compare it to the percentages of uninsured.

Uninsured Stats.

White 48%
Black 15%
Hispanic 30%
American Indian 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 5%

Clearly, even though half of the uninsured are white, 66% of the people in the country were white in the country in 2004-2005. Translation: if you are white then you are far more likely to be insured, than if you are say...Hispanic.

But doesn't the Hispanic population also make up the bulk of the population that are illegal immigrants, which make up 21%, almost a quarter, of the uninsured? Now we are getting into the sticky situation where data is starting to overlap.

Theo, if your case is so strong, why would you misrepresent the statistics and interject your personal opinion so much? I've lost my respect for you. To twist the stats in such a manner by only reporting details which would paint a picture to support your case is in poor taste for intellectual discussion.

And we are still only talking about the uninsured. Not the thousands of people who lose their savings, homes, etc. when they fall on hard times even though they are insured.

I was not getting into the people that are losing saving, homes, etc etc when they fall on hard times. A worrisome situation that is only exasperated by the fact that government still taxes these people and the fact that government regulation has made it necessary for the insurance companies to only provide partial coverage and raise premiums so that they can stay in business and provide care to the majority.

I was merely trying to show that health care is not the crisis that the news media and certain politicians would like you to believe. I do concede that it is necessary to get more people insured, but not force them to like Hillary Clinton proposes. A good way to do this would be to significantly reduce the regulations that have made the price of health care go up while at the same time reducing taxes on the middle and lower income earners so that they could afford private insurance which has had a history of providing better care than government mandated programs. Anyone that purchases private insurance should also be given the same hefty tax breaks that are given to employers when they provide health care to their employees. When under an employer provides insurance to someone, the cost is taken out before taxes are calculated. However, should you have private insurance it is necessary to pay for it after taxes are taken out of your income. This is a grossly unfair way of doing things because it decreases competition by practically forcing people to either apply for government care or to take up an employers health care plan that may not adequately provide for their needs. Another good way to lower insurance premiums is to finally end taxpayer subsidized health care for government workers, especially teachers and congressmen, that is much better than any private insurance that can be purchased by middle income earners. This would, at the very least, force government officials to do something about the unfair way the insurance system is set up.

Lastly, between government subsidies, charities, and free clinics many are able to get at least adequate care if they are uninsured.

Lights

03-04-2008, 11:54 AM

I think people can read the stats for themselves and come to there own conclusion. What I think your ultimate failing point is, is everyone knows someone who was screwed over by this system.

I happen to know a housekeeper who is one of the best in the business and who just a year ago was hit by a teenage driver while returning home with her husband. Her car was totaled, her husband died, and she ended up in the hospital with a broken arm, broken leg, and several internal injuries.
Even though she was insured, her insurance company only covered part of the accident. Now she can't work and she has collectors calling her all the time, even though she has lost everything, including her husband and home. She has to live with her daughter in order to survive and the costs of her medications continue to add to her unpayable debt.

Everyone knows stories like that. If you don't, then you clearly aren't involved in the real world. It is a crisis and it's increasingly becoming a problem every year. Now your particular political and economic philosophies aside, I hope you can admit that this is tremendous issue, not only for those who are uninsured, but also for those who are. I won't let you undercut this issue by misrepresenting statistics. I challenge anyone here to read those statistics for themselves and argue that it isn't an issue.

To make the assumption that people are getting adequate care in this country is simply to ignore reality. To say that people are fully capable of paying for it, or even getting adequate insurance to protect themselves, is simply a case of denial.

PS: Don't even try to squirm your way out of misrepresenting race as issue in this with "data is starting to overlap". You know how low you went with your comment of...

And for those that would attempt to point to race and racist practices, here's a fun statistic:

"The uninsured are more likely to be white than other races or ethnicities, comprising about half of the uninsured population (48%)"

I found that comment disgusting and very unintelligent, especially when an idiot can compare the race breakdown to the uninsured stats and see that it is.

Theodoric

03-04-2008, 12:33 PM

I think people can read the stats for themselves and come to there own conclusion. What I think your ultimate failing point is, is everyone knows someone who was screwed over by this system.

Actually, I don't. And nobody I know knows of someone that has been "screwed over by the system" as you so eloquently put it. And I know people that are in a broad range of categories. From the retired to the young, from laborers to professionals, from low income to middle income.

I happen to know a housekeeper who is one of the best in the business and who just a year ago was hit by a teenage driver while returning home with her husband. Her car was totaled, her husband died, and she ended up in the hospital with a broken arm, broken leg, and several internal injuries.

If this is actually the case, the teenager in question should be responsible for her injuries as well as the company that insured him. There's a reason why part of car insurance premiums cover bodily injuries not only to drivers, but also to anyone else involved in the accident.

Even though she was insured, her insurance company only covered part of the accident. Now she can't work and she has collectors calling her all the time, even though she has lost everything, including her husband and home. She has to live with her daughter in order to survive and the costs of her medications continue to add to her unpayable debt.

And since she can't work she is technically disabled, which means she can not only qualify for government care, but the government would pick up the costs already accrued by her for her medical expenses.

It is a crisis and it's increasingly becoming a problem every year. Now your particular political and economic philosophies aside, I hope you can admit that this is tremendous issue, not only for those who are uninsured, but also for those who are.

I think I already did in my previous post where I admitted that getting more people insured is important and proposed several ways to do this without creating a socialized health care system administered by the government.

I found that comment disgusting and very unintelligent, especially when an idiot can compare the race breakdown to the uninsured stats and see that it is.

So what you say is that it is fine for you to ignore that 27% of the uninsured earn over 300% of the poverty level and 11% more earn over 500% (meaning a total of 38%) and nearly half of all the uninsured (48%) are white but it is not OK for me to leave out other statistics? Seems to me that you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of.

So instead of citing statistics, positing questions, and making personal attacks why don't you actually make a case for socialized health care? I've already made my case against it and shown how the current system could be made better with only a few alterations. And really, please point out how this system could actually work without grossly increasing taxes and creating an even bloated government bureaucracy to manage it and point to some examples where socialized health care actually has worked in the past. You point to certain instances where the current system does not work, I've pointed to instances where socialized systems don't work. Why don't we find a system that does work?

And to anyone that lives in Canada, Australia, Britain, or any other country where socialized care is utilized I'd like to hear from you. Tell us if those systems actually work or if they are failing. Everything I've heard about them is that they are failing for everyone and providing inadequate care, so I'd like to hear from someone that has experienced this firsthand.

To be honest, I'd rather live with a system where the majority of people receive good care and there are those few hard luck cases than live in a system where no one receives even adequate care.

Lights

03-04-2008, 12:49 PM

Actually, I don't. And nobody I know knows of someone that has been "screwed over by the system" as you so eloquently put it. And I know people that are in a broad range of categories. From the retired to the young, from laborers to professionals, from low income to middle income.

You should probably talk about this stuff with people you know then. How bout first, you go back and actually read this thread. (When I hear the argument "Nobody I know, knows anything" it gets the same reaction out of me as when I hear my friends say "I don't know any homosexuals". This is a political issue, and people aren't going to openly discuss it and their stories unless you actually engage them.)

If this is actually the case, the teenager in question should be responsible for her injuries as well as the company that insured him. There's a reason why part of car insurance premiums cover bodily injuries not only to drivers, but also to anyone else involved in the accident.

They went to court over it. The teenager was not held responsible. The roads were slick.

And since she can't work she is technically disabled, which means she can not only qualify for government care, but the government would pick up the costs already accrued by her for her medical expenses.

She has applied and been denied, three times.

I think I already did in my previous post where I admitted that getting more people insured is important and proposed several ways to do this without creating a socialized health care system administered by the government.

You tried to undercut this issue with a horrible misrepresentation of the statistics and continiue to do so with a denial that there is even a problem with those who are insured.

So what you say is that it is fine for you to ignore that 27% of the uninsured earn over 300% of the poverty level and 11% more earn over 500% (meaning a total of 38%) and nearly half of all the uninsured (48%) are white but it is not OK for me to leave out other statistics? Seems to me that you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of.

You mean, like you ignored the 74% who make less than 300FPL, which is about $30,000 a year in a single person household. I would say $30,000 is about the minimum to get by nowadays. Or are you saying that because 27% of the people who are uninsured make up a demographic of between $30-50,000 (per single person household) that they can afford insurance despite circumstances? I'll admit, I'm not worried about the top 11%. But hey, how bout we add on the 12 million illegals in this country, most of whom are uninsured. And of course, how bout the tens of millions who are insured but wouldn't be able to afford the deductibles if anything did happen? How bout the millions who have very limited (HMO) insurance or how about those who can't leave and gain better employment for fear of losing their insurance because it is provided by their employer?

So instead of citing statistics, positing questions, and making personal attacks why don't you actually make a case for socialized health care? I've already made my case against it and shown how the current system could be made better with only a few alterations. And really, please point out how this system could actually work and point to some examples where socialized health care actually has worked in the past. You point to certain instances where this system does not work, I've pointed to instances where socialized systems don't work. Why don't we find a system that does work?

I'm not making a case for socialized health care. I'm defending that study that you slaughtered and the reality that there is a serious crisis with our health care. And I'm doing so by asking that people actually read it in its entirety. Those are the stats I'm providing. The same ones you misrepresented. They can all go to that link and read it for themselves.

And to anyone that lives in Canada, Australia, Britain, or any other country where socialized care is utilized I'd like to hear from you. Tell us if those systems actually work or if they are failing. Everything I've heard about them is that they are failing for everyone and providing inadequate care, so I'd like to hear from someone that has experienced this firsthand.

I suggest again you go back through this thread.

To be honest, I'd rather live with a system where the majority of people receive good care and there are those few hard luck cases than live in a system where no one receives even adequate care.

Move to Canada. No one actually loses their house there and they have pretty adequate care. FYI, it's universal health care, and it isn't socialized.

The argument there, is in some regions they have long waits. But compared to the United States where some people are refused even the privilege of having their name put on a donor list so they can wait, simply because they don't have, enough of, or the right insurance, I think it's a fair trade off.

yondyr

03-04-2008, 02:07 PM

Lights

03-04-2008, 02:13 PM

yondyr

03-04-2008, 03:46 PM

There is an option for private health care here, the premiums are quite hefty. Some don't bother, feeling that free emergency care will be sufficient, and paying out of savings for other health services a reasonable gamble against the total out of pocket sum paid over the years in premiums, especially as an item like a pacemaker might only cost a total of $US10,000.

Theodoric

03-04-2008, 04:27 PM

Socialist Australias health care system is grossly inadequate. Despite a massive infusion of money from gambling (pokies) recently introduced, the GST (VAT) also recent, and vast hikes in the price of tobacco and fuel, the money instead of being targeted at the revenue source, i.e. health, roads etc, is commingled with the general fund thereby easily siphoned off by politicians. Disbursements are often into one time grants, or programs that avoid a continual drain or long term solution such as health care. A political popularity porkbarrelling bandaid.

Thanks for the input.

So really, is it a fact that you could get better care for far less if you had private, rather than government, coverage?

The same issue occurs in the US with the Social Security system. Many politicians are screaming that this is going to be yet another 'crisis'. Some say we need to fix it, some say we need to privatize retirement benefits, while still others point to illegal immigrants siphoning off funds that have put nothing into the system but reap the benefits. In all actuality its the government's own fault for using the funds in the system for something other than their intended purpose, ie retirement benefits. Coupled with pork barrel spending, corporate kickbacks, and a tax and spend mentality that prevails in congress we seem to be in a bit of a bind.

And people wonder why I don't trust the government to manage health care. :laugh:

Colette

03-04-2008, 04:37 PM

I've only heard bad things about Australia's socialized health care. Why haven't you guys gone back to a more privatized system?

Hah - you think that's got a snowball's chance of happening with Kevin Rudd (man of the people, saviour of the nation, and latter day messiah of all frustrated socialists) at the helm?

More chance of Brad and Ange NOT adopting another child, in the year 2008, I reckon ;)

yondyr

03-04-2008, 04:56 PM

Australia has a compulsory medicare levy (read tax) based on income and kicks in at some minimal level (which I manage to stay under, :) ). So those careful individuals who opt for private cover are paying twice. Should one need emergency treatment one usually gets it, and its free, though in this city, the ambulances tend to back up waiting for a bed to discharge the patient to - I guess you should have a gusher instead of a heart attack, more evident.
Private health plans serve those who wish to survive their immediate maladies.
Public health service sufferers of some disorders such as pacemaker, heart surgery, cancer treatment etc are put on waiting lists after being classified into categories of need. Should you not last the waiting period, and some don't, the list is what one might call self-cleaning.

Colette

03-04-2008, 05:25 PM

Australia has a compulsory medicare levy (read tax) based on income and kicks in at some minimal level (which I manage to stay under, :) ). So those careful individuals who opt for private cover are paying twice

That is completely corrupt, and 'double dipping' by the Government. Was this policy a John Howard stroke of genius?

yondyr

03-04-2008, 07:34 PM

The health system here has been a patched together melange for decades incorporating public health provision, private insurance, govt rebates on premiums and govt assisted schemes. A libertarian would turn in his premature grave at the commingling of taxes with the private sector much as he/she would at monies given to religious schools.

Sylvanus

03-04-2008, 11:47 PM

Always be suspicious of people who don't provide a source. His source was probably...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's why I usually ask. Some of it may have been misrepresented, as you say. However, I don't fall in for that 'poverty' BS. 200% or 300% above poverty is still a lot better than being middle class in most european countries.

Lights

03-05-2008, 12:07 AM

That's why I usually ask. Some of it may have been misrepresented, as you say. However, I don't fall in for that 'poverty' BS. 200% or 300% above poverty is still a lot better than being middle class in most european countries.

The cost of living in the United States is incredibly high. You could not get by very well on just $20,000 a year (200FPL).

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 12:24 AM

The cost of living in the United States is incredibly high. You could not get by very well on just $20,000 a year (200FPL).

Poverty revisited (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Lights

03-05-2008, 12:34 AM

Poverty revisited (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Oh please tell me you aren't posting national review, a conservative magazine, as a source for your views on poverty. :rolleyes: Talk about misrepresenting statistics and imposing opinion.

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 12:44 AM

Oh please tell me you aren't posting national review, a conservative magazine, as a source for your views on poverty. :rolleyes: Talk about misrepresenting statistics and imposing opinion.

You say conservative, I say honest and direct. What do you have to say about the opposing claims by John Edwards:
In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”

and Rector?:
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

To me, one seems to be the exaggerations of a demagogue, the other the words of a person relating reality.

Colette

03-05-2008, 12:52 AM

To me, one seems to be the exaggerations of a demagogue, the other the words of a person relating reality.

Hmm...for once I actually agree with you. Compared with third world standards, I don't believe there is a high level of 'real' poverty in the US. Homeless, vagrant, unemployed, yes. Starving/crippling diseases? Not so many.

Lights

03-05-2008, 01:02 AM

Let's see what wikipedia has to say about national review.

Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events.

Not to mention it's just pretty obvious.

Let's see, I own a 15 year old color television, a VCR I bought at a church store for $2, and and a 30 year old microwave oven. Yup, I must be filthy rich. That probably means I can afford health care, rent, and every other necessity.:rolleyes:

They didn't exactly provide a source for those nourishments stats, did they? I was just talking to one the elementary school teachers here the other day and she provides up to a dozen coats a year to children in her school.

The conservatives plea that the rampant materialism of America is an indicator of anything is ludicrous. Watch this and tell me you still feel the same way.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sylvanus

03-05-2008, 02:13 AM

They didn't exactly provide a source for those nourishments stats, did they? I was just talking to one the elementary school teachers here the other day and she provides up to a dozen coats a year to children in her school.

The conservatives plea that the rampant materialism of America is an indicator of anything is ludicrous. Watch this and tell me you still feel the same way.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The video players that work on my computer at work are pretty hit and miss, I'll try to catch this later, then I'll reply. I'll try to look up some stats on hunger too.

Sylvanus added to this post, 39 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Let's see, I own a 15 year old color television, a VCR I bought at a church store for $2, and and a 30 year old microwave oven. Yup, I must be filthy rich. That probably means I can afford health care, rent, and every other necessity.:rolleyes:

I did some calculations. Assuming a single person making $8.00 an hour (just above minimum wage here in OR), makes about $1250 a month after taxes. With 1 roommate, a person can pay less than $300 a month for rent and utilities (trust me, I've done it before). I can, and often do, eat for less than $5 a day, or $150 a month. I pay $50 a month for insurance (employer pays the rest, I'm not sure what the going rate is). That leaves $750 a month left over for whatever else I may want and covers all the necessities (maybe less depending on source and cost of insurance). I could easily fit a phone, car and car insurance in there. They may not be top of the line, but it more than covers necessities, all on minimum wage. Assuming I don't go out and buy all of it at once, at that rate I could buy a new TV, an AC, a DVD player with cash and remain out of debt and off the dole.

Lights

03-05-2008, 02:39 AM

I did some calculations. Assuming a single person making $8.00 an hour (just above minimum wage here in OR), makes about $1250 a month after taxes. With 1 roommate, a person can pay less than $300 a month for rent and utilities (trust me, I've done it before). I can, and often do, eat for less than $5 a day, or $150 a month. I pay $50 a month for insurance (employer pays the rest, I'm not sure what the going rate is). That leaves $750 a month left over for whatever else I may want and covers all the necessities (maybe less depending on source and cost of insurance). I could easily fit a phone, car and car insurance in there. They may not be top of the line, but it more than covers necessities, all on minimum wage. Assuming I don't go out and buy all of it at once, at that rate I could buy a new TV, an AC, a DVD player with cash and remain out of debt and off the dole.

Yeah, I'm sure minimum wage jobs typically pay insurance. :laugh:

Um...I think your calculations are a little...stupid.

1. You are assuming you are by yourself and have no children. Imagine a single mother at minimum wage.
2. You are counting the insurance you currently have, when most minimum wage jobs, which isn't even $7.25 in most states by the way, don't provide insurance. In addition to that, you aren't counting the deductible. If you have $1000 deductible, how much is it gonna do when you get sick and you have to pay that out of pocket? What happens when you get hurt and can't work?
3. You are assuming that $150 a month is enough for food! I buy only generic, with coupons, and I still pay $100 a week here!
4. You think you can have a car, car insurance, gas, maintenance fees, etc. for how much? I would guess the cost of car insurance alone is usually between $50-100 for a young person. If you have to drive to get to work at $2.85 a gallon? My last oil change cost me $40 bucks and they found one of my belts was worn through which was unexpected $60.
5. You haven't added costs for laundry, cleaning supplies, toiletries, medicine, bedding, dishes/silverware, lightbulbs, and on and on of sundry little things that people take for granted but add up very quickly.
6. How much are you suggesting they invest and put into retirement and savings?

Seriously, you soooo need to watch that video so you can get a little dose of reality. No wonder Conservatives think the way they do. They are oblivious! :laugh:

Some old stats on minimum wage.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe what you are saying is "Let them eat cake". :yuck: After all, it's only been proven that paying a living wage is beneficial to businesses and the economy.

Theodoric

03-05-2008, 11:33 AM

Yeah, I'm sure minimum wage jobs typically pay insurance. :laugh:

So I guess we should really ask then, who earns minimum wage? And conveniently enough, I have an article on that titled, "Who Earns the Minimum Wage?" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. You are assuming you are by yourself and have no children. Imagine a single mother at minimum wage.

If this is the case, she is eligible for WIC, SCHIP, and other government subsidized programs. Plus, the government gives out hefty tax rebates to anyone with a kid, usually to the tune of $1000 - $1500 per kid. Not to mention she is probably getting some form of child support from the father.

2. You are counting the insurance you currently have, when most minimum wage jobs, which isn't even $7.25 in most states by the way, don't provide insurance. In addition to that, you aren't counting the deductible. If you have $1000 deductible, how much is it gonna do when you get sick and you have to pay that out of pocket? What happens when you get hurt and can't work?

I'd like to see some evidence that most minimum wage jobs don't offer insurance. I know every minimum wage job I've worked at or my friends worked at offered it. The only ones that seem to not offer insurance are small businesses, where the costs are prohibitively expensive. Just another reason why we need to figure how to lower costs of health care and not just give it away.

3. You are assuming that $150 a month is enough for food! I buy only generic, with coupons, and I still pay $100 a week here!

Then you either are making poor choices on what you purchase, where you shop, and how much you eat or wherever you live has grossly inflated prices on foodstuffs. I spend $150 a month on food, and that's to feed both me and my girlfriend! And its not like we eat rice and beans either. Its actually more like steak and broccoli.

4. You think you can have a car, car insurance, gas, maintenance fees, etc. for how much? I would guess the cost of car insurance alone is usually between $50-100 for a young person. If you have to drive to get to work at $2.85 a gallon? My last oil change cost me $40 bucks and they found one of my belts was worn through which was unexpected $60.

I think you've made a better case for public transit here and not for socialized health insurance :laugh:

OK, now I know you make poor decisions with your money. $40 for an oil change? I go to Wal-Mart and have it done, and it only costs $17. If I wanted to go to another place it would only be between $20 - $25. I hope wherever you are getting this done they have a Saudi Arabian Prince changing your oil filter for that much. At least then you'd be getting your money's worth.

5. You haven't added costs for laundry, cleaning supplies, toiletries, medicine, bedding, dishes/silverware, lightbulbs, and on and on of sundry little things that people take for granted but add up very quickly.

Me and my girlfriend do laundry maybe every 2 weeks, and it costs about $15 for both of us. Cleaning supplies can be gotten at a Dollar Store, maybe costing $3 - $7 every month or two. I use CFT bulbs, which not only last about 10 years (haven't hand to change a bulb in over 2 years so far!) but also drastically reduce my utility bills and help the environment. And I don't know about you, but I don't purchase new bedding and dishes every month.

6. How much are you suggesting they invest and put into retirement and savings?

I could put $50 each month into an IRA and still get better returns on it compared to the current Social Security setup which, by the way, eats up significantly more than that. Currently, Social Security would pay me $48k yearly if I retire at 65. However, if I took that same money and put it into a Roth IRA I would have $1.2 million, or enough to cover me for 25 years at the government's Social Security rate. The only way Social Security would pay me more is if I managed to live past 90. But really, artificially extending my lifespan with drugs and medical procedures doesn't appeal to me that much.

Seriously, you soooo need to watch that video so you can get a little dose of reality. No wonder Conservatives think the way they do. They are oblivious! :laugh:

I did watch it, and yes, it would be heartbreaking if it was actually applicable to real life working adults. From that linked article I had way up at the top, you know, this one To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"The majority of minimum wage-earners fall into the first category: 53 percent of those earning $5.15 or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24.

Minimum wage workers under 25 are typically not their family’s sole breadwinner. Rather, they live in middle-class households that do not rely on their earnings. For the most part, they have not finished their schooling and are working part-time jobs."

I really feel so bad for all those middle class suburban teenagers and college kids.

"Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. Most of them choose to work part-time, and a sizeable number are married. The average older minimum wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution."

But here's one more statistic that you may find interesting.

"Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage. In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 or less per hour. This amounted to 2.5 percent of all workers earning hourly wages and 1.5 percent of all workers in the United States."

Now, since 53% of all Americans are in the 16 - 24 category and in households earning an average of $64,000, we can cut that figure down to .9 million (900,000 for those that are bad with numbers) that are actually working adults which may or may not be living on their own. But wait, there's more!

"More than half—56 percent—work part-time jobs.
They have an average family income of $33,606 per year.
Just 23 percent live in poverty, while 45 percent have incomes over twice the poverty line."

Meaning that about only 200,000 people that earn minimum wage actually live in poverty. Yes, I know I'm rounding, but this is for people to get a better understanding of the situation, not to get into specifics.

But lastly, going back to your single mother that makes minimum wage:

"Just 6.1 percent of minimum wage workers over the age of 24 are single parents working full-time."

Meaning 120,000 people are single parents making minimum. However, we are not taking into account that a portion of these people are either working at jobs where tips account for a large portion of income, living at home with no expenses, or receiving government aid. The only way we could actually get a real clear picture of the situation is if we knew how many were living on their own making minimum wage with neither government aid, tips, investments, charities, etc. to supplement their income. I'm sure there are a few, but not at epidemic proportions.

Some old stats on minimum wage.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The EPI? I'm not inclined to trust economic policy from a K Street based lobbyist think tank with leftist leanings that is headed by professors that never put their theories into practice, let alone actually ran a business, and a bunch of union reps.

Theodoric added to this post, 13 minutes and 58 seconds later...

That is completely corrupt, and 'double dipping' by the Government. Was this policy a John Howard stroke of genius?

I agree. You should at least have the choice of either or. Sadly, when a government decides to implement a poorly administered plan into action when there are better alternatives you usually don't have a choice in the matter.

Lights

03-05-2008, 12:22 PM

If this is the case, she is eligible for WIC, SCHIP, and other government subsidized programs. Plus, the government gives out hefty tax rebates to anyone with a kid, usually to the tune of $1000 - $1500 per kid. Not to mention she is probably getting some form of child support from the father.

Considering I'm from a single mother home, I better bite my tongue on this one because I'm bound to say some rather mean things. Let's just say that the picture you are trying to paint is not the reality. I know very well the reality of the working poor and the ignorance of the people who refuse to acknowledge it will come back to bite them in the ass.

Just out of curiosity, how much do you think a person needs to make in order to just get by in this country? What wage would you consider is the bottom dollar?

Also, what makes you think that video isn't applicable. It isn't exactly fair to just say so without providing any reason. In fact, had you actually watched the video, then you would know the people in it, were working at higher than federal minimum wage.

Theodoric

03-05-2008, 01:56 PM

Considering I'm from a single mother home, I better bite my tongue on this one because I'm bound to say some rather mean things.

Good for you, Lights. So was I. I never knew my father and we had to live on food stamps for awhile, so I know what its like to be poor too. I've had to do without for much of my life and only until now after years of hard work that I'm able to have and do the things I've wanted to. So excuse me if I don't want that taken away from me by some government busybody that wants to help out all those disadvantaged people that won't do a damn thing for themselves.

Funny how two people can have similar upbringings yet build two entirely different world views.

But personal interjections aside...

Let's just say that the picture you are trying to paint is not the reality. I know very well the reality of the working poor and the ignorance of the people who refuse to acknowledge it will come back to bite them in the ass.

And all the research and data shows that the actual working poor are few and far between and yet they still have it better off than in practically every other country. What would you do, tax the middle class at 60% like Denmark does, effectively turning them into the lower class dependent on the state and driving away skilled workers to other countries just to make things 'fair'?

Just out of curiosity, how much do you think a person needs to make in order to just get by in this country? What wage would you consider is the bottom dollar?

That grossly depends on where you live. The cost of living in NYC or San Francisco is radically different than living in say, Appalachia or even the Mid West.

Also, what makes you think that video isn't applicable. It isn't exactly fair to just say so without providing any reason. In fact, had you actually watched the video, then you would know the people in it, were working at higher than federal minimum wage.

Because actual data and statistics says otherwise. The video only proved to me several things I already knew. Taxing those that make less than 300% of the poverty level is wrong. Congress is a corrupt group of individuals that only look out for themselves. Regulations and taxes only increase costs to businesses and lower wages.

Lights

03-05-2008, 03:03 PM

That grossly depends on where you live. The cost of living in NYC or San Francisco is radically different than living in say, Appalachia or even the Mid West.

But that doesn't really answer my question. Pick some places. What would you believe the minimum wage necessary to just get by in those places would be? Its easy to gather up a lot of stats and paint a picture with them that represents your point of view. I have textbooks full of information, data, and statistics about the working poor that I could plagiarize on here and represent in such a way as to make a strong case. That doesn't really prove anything other than I'm good at posting stats, which can be cherry picked to represent any view as you yourself continue to demonstrate. That's rhetoric, and it doesn't really contribute to discussion. I would actually like to see you make a case for what the minimum wage should be and justify it.

Forgive me, but it's hard to be impressed with statistics which can be represented in whatever way a person wants to represent them, when I have real life experience that tells me what the reality is like. It's almost like someone telling me, your experience is invalid, because I can find numbers which may or may not be indicative of the case I am making.

Sylvanus

03-06-2008, 11:21 PM

But that doesn't really answer my question. Pick some places. What would you believe the minimum wage necessary to just get by in those places would be? Its easy to gather up a lot of stats and paint a picture with them that represents your point of view. I have textbooks full of information, data, and statistics about the working poor that I could plagiarize on here and represent in such a way as to make a strong case. That doesn't really prove anything other than I'm good at posting stats, which can be cherry picked to represent any view as you yourself continue to demonstrate. That's rhetoric, and it doesn't really contribute to discussion. I would actually like to see you make a case for what the minimum wage should be and justify it.

Forgive me, but it's hard to be impressed with statistics which can be represented in whatever way a person wants to represent them, when I have real life experience that tells me what the reality is like. It's almost like someone telling me, your experience is invalid, because I can find numbers which may or may not be indicative of the case I am making.

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite. I clicked on Colorado because it is fairly average (cost of living and minimum wage) at $7.00 an hour. Using my calculations from earlier, that is an equally livable wage as $8 in Oregon. Minimum wages are usually proportional to the cost of living in a state. In a better world (more capitalist), taxes would be 2/3 of what they are now by cutting socialist and wasteful programs. That means that $7 would buy Over $9 worth of stuff. Also, stuff would be cheaper, due to the fact that with less taxes, the economy grows, blah blah blah, rehash, etc. So that $7 would be worth more than $10, which is more than enough money to get by on. You could buy an SUV with the difference, or invest it in retirement or your education so you can make more.

Lights

03-06-2008, 11:39 PM

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite. I clicked on Colorado because it is fairly average (cost of living and minimum wage) at $7.00 an hour. Using my calculations from earlier, that is an equally livable wage as $8 in Oregon. Minimum wages are usually proportional to the cost of living in a state. In a better world (more capitalist), taxes would be 2/3 of what they are now by cutting socialist and wasteful programs. That means that $7 would buy Over $9 worth of stuff. Also, stuff would be cheaper, due to the fact that with less taxes, the economy grows, blah blah blah, rehash, etc. So that $7 would be worth more than $10, which is more than enough money to get by on. You could buy an SUV with the difference, or invest it in retirement or your education so you can make more.

:laugh: Do you mind if I show this to my old economics professor? I think he would love it.

Of course, much smarter people than both of us have actually invested the time to calculate how much it takes to live in each area of the United States. So why don't you compare your calculations and see how close you were.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sylvanus

03-07-2008, 02:29 AM

:laugh: Do you mind if I show this to my old economics professor? I think he would love it.

If he was a Keynesian I'm sure he would.

Of course, much smarter people than both of us have actually invested the time to calculate how much it takes to live in each area of the United States. So why don't you compare your calculations and see how close you were.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For everywhere I have lived, I wasn't too far off. I have never lived an any severely high priced areas like California or New York City, so I can't speak for that. But the calculator was pretty darn close for all the locations I put in, except I made the assumption that there would be at least one roommate. That can make a big difference, sharing rent and utilities brings costs down quite a bit.

For anonymities sake, I'm not going to list all the locations I have lived, but the major expenses I listed were rent/utilities and food. They said $156 (vs$150) and ~$500 (/2= 250, close to my $300). Plus other misc. stuff, comes to about $1250 for them, (minus $250 for me= $1000), putting it comfortably within the living wage for a single person. Of course, if that isn't enough, a person can always get a second job, or skills so they can make more money.

Lights

03-07-2008, 11:18 AM

If he was a Keynesian I'm sure he would.

For everywhere I have lived, I wasn't too far off. I have never lived an any severely high priced areas like California or New York City, so I can't speak for that. But the calculator was pretty darn close for all the locations I put in, except I made the assumption that there would be at least one roommate. That can make a big difference, sharing rent and utilities brings costs down quite a bit.

For anonymities sake, I'm not going to list all the locations I have lived, but the major expenses I listed were rent/utilities and food. They said $156 (vs$150) and ~$500 (/2= 250, close to my $300). Plus other misc. stuff, comes to about $1250 for them, (minus $250 for me= $1000), putting it comfortably within the living wage for a single person. Of course, if that isn't enough, a person can always get a second job, or skills so they can make more money.

Indeed. But notice they weren't saving up for retirement or buying an SUV like you claimed. Also keep in mind that it is a lot easier living by yourself. Add one kid and it is a whole different ball game. Daycare costs, diaper costs, additional food costs, and on and on.

One of the big issues is health care. Most companies in a minimum wage bracket anymore will only let employees work 38 hours a week so they don't have to provide benefits. I honestly believe that universal health care would be beneficial to the economy because then businesses wouldn't cap the number of hours a person could work.

In addition to that, getting a second job sounds like an easy fix, but working significantly more than 40 hours a week is proven to be bad on the health, especially over the long term as stress and other factors contribute to the gradual decline of a person's health.

I just believe in a country like this a person shouldn't have to just get by from paycheck to paycheck, not really being able to save up for the future.

Colette

03-07-2008, 11:25 AM

One of the big issues is health care. Most companies in a minimum wage bracket anymore will only let employees work 38 hours a week so they don't have to provide benefits. I honestly believe that universal health care would be beneficial to the economy because then businesses wouldn't cap the number of hours a person could work.

With all due respect, if you live in the USA, you live in a very sick and dysfunctional society; in terms of your system of Government. This is not an indictment on the American people, but rather on a Government which has, over the years, run the country into the ground, and worn down its population, through overtaxing and underspending in critical areas like health and welfare. Instead of $$$ being channeled to where they are most needed, the Government seems intent on spending it on risky offshore investments, tax breaks and other 'support' for large corporates which feed money into the Government's coffers, and enormous overblown defence spending, on the various 'international conflicts' that the Government seems so intent on wading into, boots and all.

It actually isn't like this, in other Western societies. Other Governments look after the basic social needs of their populations.

I don't think a change of Government this year will solve it for you. The system of Government is systemically rotten to the core, and all that could change it would be some kind of push from the people to change what they see as unacceptable.

yondyr

03-07-2008, 01:29 PM

Ahem, Lights, you mention diaper costs. Disposable diapers are a luxury for much of the rest of the world, and should not be on poor Americans shopping list else they are not truly poor.

Colette

03-07-2008, 01:43 PM

Ahem, Lights, you mention diaper costs. Disposable diapers are a luxury for much of the rest of the world, and should not be on poor Americans shopping list else they are not truly poor.

Agreed. I used cloth 'nappies' with my first child - I was the main breadwinner and caregiver too, and there's no way we could have afforded disposable diapers.

Lights

03-07-2008, 01:53 PM

Ahem, Lights, you mention diaper costs. Disposable diapers are a luxury for much of the rest of the world, and should not be on poor Americans shopping list else they are not truly poor.

I didn't specifically mention disposable diapers. Reusable diapers cost money too, and require cleaning. Now if you want to make the argument that to qualify as poor, people need to dress their children in newspaper, then let's hear it. I could use a good laugh. These kind of conservative arguments, "The rest of the world is worse off..." lack one logical component...we aren't the rest of the world. If we can't hold ourselves to our own standards, then I suggest we stop all social programs and let people starve on the streets as many parts of the "rest of the world" would. It's ludicrous to suggest because that is the way things in the "rest of the world" are that that has anything to do with the way things should be here in America. Of course, I could also use that same argument to suggest that we have socialized health care because many parts of the "rest of the world" do. Why stop there? Canada has gay marriage so we should also. They don't have a death penalty in Norway, so we should get rid of ours. Let's legalize some drugs since they are legal in Amsterdam! Let's legalize prostitution like it is in France!

Or maybe America is America, and the rest of the world is the rest of the world. Maybe we shouldn't go around citing the standards of the rest of the world for how things should be in America.

1OFMANY

03-07-2008, 01:58 PM

I have a few questions:

1) How much do medical doctors pay in mal-practice insurance?

2)Do you think medical doctors charge too much for their services?

3) Besides the doctors paycheck, what comprises the bulk of the cost on medical services?

1OFMANY added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Or maybe America is America, and the rest of the world is the rest of the world. Maybe we shouldn't go around citing the standards of the rest of the world for how things should be in America.

abso-frikkin-halleleuia Lights has seeeen the light lol

America is America, and I dont really care what Europe or Canada or timbuck-frikkin-tu is doing. No social medicine here IMO :P

BTW, one of my business professors is from Canada and despises the social medicine there FYI.

Lights

03-07-2008, 02:00 PM

I have a few questions:

1) How much do medical doctors pay in mal-practice insurance?

2)Do you think medical doctors charge too much for their services?

3) Besides the doctors paycheck, what comprises the bulk of the cost on medical services?

Can't you go look that up on Google?

Lights added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...

abso-frikkin-halleleuia Lights has seeeen the light lol

America is America, and I dont really care what Europe or Canada or timbuck-frikkin-tu is doing. No social medicine here IMO :P

BTW, one of my business professors is from Canada and despises the social medicine there FYI.

Oh, I still think we should have universal medicine. But only because it is the standard I think America should have for its citizens, not because other countries do it.

yondyr

03-07-2008, 02:02 PM

Lights

03-07-2008, 03:22 PM

Colette

03-07-2008, 03:24 PM

I AM part of the 'rest of the world'. I was not aware that this forum was restricted to American views only. And disposable diapers have an ongoing cost that could feed and clothe a person whereas cloth ones have a small initial cost, AND a small continuing cost, and last for many years.

America is the world, didn't you know? The rest of us are just 'wannabes' ;)

I agree with Lights there should be some form of universalized healthcare in the US; that is not dependent on ability to pay insurance. Further, if the right to sue doctors were restricted (as it is here) by the introduction of a medical misadventure compensation scheme, healthcare would become more affordable, because doctors would not have to pass on the cost of malpractice insurance to their patients.

ArchonAlarion

03-09-2008, 03:59 PM

Lights

03-09-2008, 07:01 PM

No there shouldn't. Universal healthcare is just another sickening socialist institution.

Personal opinion.

If it is wrong for one man to steal, than why is it okay if he's a tax collector? THREATENING PEOPLE WITH VIOLENCE, TO FORCE THEM TO DO THINGS is immoral unless used in self defense.

Value judgment.

It isn't free helthcare, someone has to pay for it.

Very true. Who is saying it is free?

Instead of having businesses compete for lower prices, higher wages, and better quality, you'd rather just have a state run program, which doesn't compete on a freemarket.

Since you are talking about universal health care and not socialized health care then I think it is fair to tell you that many universal health care programs do still utilize the freemarket. Sometimes, they only regulate the amount companies can charge a person based on a percentage of their income. And considering the shape our economy is in here in the US after 8 years of Bush pushing free market trade and the subsequent loss of millions of manufacturing jobs overseas as a result, I am not impressed with your argument for lower prices, higher wages, and better quality. Especially since prices have been going up, most of the new jobs that have been created are low paying jobs, and many of the products we have been getting from China have been recalled due to hazards such as lead paint and mercury.

Great idea. Lots of incentive for progress and efficiency there, when you get your money automatically through force.:rolleyes:

Value Judgment.

All that Ayn Rand reading has done nothing to improve your position. Your argument is completely based on assumptions from your philosophy without any supporting evidence from reality.

GreenDevil

03-12-2008, 12:45 AM

I've experienced U.S. government health care personally (in the Army). Our government can't do anything right. Better to save the money from taxes, and use it to pay for health insurance.

ArchonAlarion

03-12-2008, 03:35 PM

Yes it is value judgment. I value life, freedom, and happines. Obviously, you do not.

You're using value judgment too! Why do think it is so great to have universal healthcare if you don't have values? You must value the well being of humans otherwise you wouldn't care what happened. Also I wouldn't be too quick in calling George Bush a capitalist. he is more of a statecapitalist/mercantilist/corporatist/fascist, and I think you'd agree. He is definately not laissez faire. :(

I'll let you go with your little fantasy that somehow people are more motivated to provide quality services when they don't need to worry about competition. Good luck.

By the way, although I like Rand, The only material I've read by her are Anthem and 3/4 of the Fountainhead. I've never read her intellectual books.

Lights

03-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Yes it is value judgment. I value life, freedom, and happines. Obviously, you do not.

Personal attack. Just because I don't share your views doesn't mean I don't value life, freedom, and happiness.

You're using value judgment too! Why do think it is so great to have universal healthcare if you don't have values? You must value the well being of humans otherwise you wouldn't care what happened. Also I wouldn't be too quick in calling George Bush a capitalist. he is more of a statecapitalist/mercantilist/corporatist/fascist, and I think you'd agree. He is definately not laissez faire. :(

But I actually have arguments beyond value judgments and personal opinions as to why universal health care would be beneficial to the American people and the economy. Whereas your entire argument is based on your ideology. Such arguments being that it provides infastructure, it improves the overall health of the work force, and it provides incentives for doctors to provide better care.

I'll let you go with your little fantasy that somehow people are more motivated to provide quality services when they don't need to worry about competition. Good luck.

When did I ever say that I didn't value competition? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? It sounds to me like you might have trouble listening. That is a common problem with preachers.

By the way, although I like Rand, The only material I've read by her are Anthem and 3/4 of the Fountainhead. I've never read her intellectual books.

Seems like you have jumped in feet first then.

thod

03-12-2008, 04:54 PM

Yes it is value judgment. I value life, freedom, and happiness. Obviously, you do not.

Nope you value YOUR life, freedom, and happiness. You couldn't care less about other peoples. You have no interest in maximizing these qualities for everyone. When the peasants shout for bread you would be the one saying "let them eat cake then". You expect everyone else to do what is your interest. When they refuse you say they are oppressing you. You are not a leader of men and men will not follow you. The 2 year old has the same self interest with everything being about them. You need to grow up and fast.

I'll let you go with your little fantasy that somehow people are more motivated to provide quality services when they don't need to worry about competition

We all know that competition leads to a better service that is not in dispute. We also know that it leads to large numbers of people being unable to afford the service. So we are evaluating 2 evils. The position is that it is better to have universal health care, inefficiently provided, than to have an efficient system with many people having no health care. You could make exactly the same arguments for the police force. It is an identical case. Yet if you removed police protection from the poor and only had them investigate robberies of rich men you would soon lose all control of that sector of the populace.

ArchonAlarion

03-12-2008, 05:27 PM

Nope you value YOUR life, freedom, and happiness. You couldn't care less about other peoples. You have no interest in maximizing these qualities for everyone. When the peasants shout for bread you would be the one saying "let them eat cake then". You expect everyone else to do what is your interest. When they refuse you say they are oppressing you. You are not a leader of men and men will not follow you. The 2 year old has the same self interest with everything being about them. You need to grow up and fast.

Wrong. I value your life, your freedom, and your happiness also. I am not altruistic, nor should I be. Altruism has lead to the most horrendous acts in history. Tell me of a time when a greedy, selfish, business man killed millions of people. Please I beg you. It's been socialist institutions like the Nazi party and communist countries that let millions starve and throw millions in gulags and concentration camps. If I am advocating a society in which everyone is free, than you will be included, obviously!

Ummm, I do believe it twas a queen of France who said, "let them eat cake then". Seeing as I'm an anarchist, I don't really think that quote applies to me. :rolleyes:

I have said time and time again, that people should pursue what they value as long as it does not infringe on the life and liberty of others. This whole time I've been advocating the EXACT opposite of what you accuse me of.

We all know that competition leads to a better service that is not in dispute. We also know that it leads to large numbers of people being unable to afford the service. So we are evaluating 2 evils. The position is that it is better to have universal health care, inefficiently provided, than to have an efficient system with many people having no health care. You could make exactly the same arguments for the police force. It is an identical case. Yet if you removed police protection from the poor and only had them investigate robberies of rich men you would soon lose all control of that sector of the populace.

No, competition leads to companies competing for better wages and benefits, to keep employees contented. Why do you think totalitarian countries have such poor living standards?

Businesses will not ignore a huge sector of the market like the unwealthy. Many people are willing to pay for goods and services, and there are a lot more poor than rich people. Developing companies have to start selling to poorer people first anyway. No business would deny selling things to someone because they were worse off; it's an oppurtunity to make money. You are simply and utterly wrong here. Look around at all the businesses selling to poor people. Mcdonalds makes a living off it.

thod

03-12-2008, 06:01 PM

Businesses will not ignore a huge sector of the market like the unwealthy. Many people are willing to pay for goods and services, and there are a lot more poor than rich people. Developing companies have to start selling to poorer people first anyway. No business would deny selling things to someone because they were worse off; it's an oppurtunity to make money. You are simply and utterly wrong here. Look around at all the businesses selling to poor people. Mcdonalds makes a living off it

You could make a killing if you can figure out how to offer these people comprehensive health insurance within their budgets. Nobody has managed to do so, either business or charitable institutions. Millions cannot afford the insurance. The free market solution has failed in the US and every other developing country where the poor go without.

We have machines to do all the work and tech has optimized all the processes. There really is no reason every man should not have the basics. Food, shelter, power, healthcare, education. I don't care if I drive a Ferrari but I have to eat and shelter from the rain and cold. I don't ask others to provide it. What is stopping the poor from growing food, building homes, providing healthcare to each other. The answer is the rich guys asserting ownership claims and keeping them that way to provide labor for their non productive lifestyles. If the poor created a new currency and refused to accept the billionaires dollars then he is in trouble. Without anyone willing to take his dollars for services his dollars are worthless (see the falling dollar atm)

ArchonAlarion

03-12-2008, 06:24 PM

You could make a killing if you can figure out how to offer these people comprehensive health insurance within their budgets. Nobody has managed to do so, either business or charitable institutions. Millions cannot afford the insurance. The free market solution has failed in the US and every other developing country where the poor go without.

Yes you could make a killing! There is no lassez-faire society in the world right now, so I'd watch out for those generalizations. If they weren't living of welfare and weren't taxed and the entrepenuerial spirit was crushed than I think the poor would be much better off.

We have machines to do all the work and tech has optimized all the processes. There really is no reason every man should not have the basics. Food, shelter, power, healthcare, education. I don't care if I drive a Ferrari but I have to eat and shelter from the rain and cold. I don't ask others to provide it. What is stopping the poor from growing food, building homes, providing healthcare to each other. The answer is the rich guys asserting ownership claims and keeping them that way to provide labor for their non productive lifestyles. If the poor created a new currency and refused to accept the billionaires dollars then he is in trouble. Without anyone willing to take his dollars for services his dollars are worthless (see the falling dollar atm)

"I don't ask others to provide it."

Amen brother.

"What is stopping the poor from growing food, building homes, providing healthcare to each other. The answer is the rich guys asserting ownership claims and keeping them that way to provide labor for their non productive lifestyles. If the poor created a new currency and refused to accept the billionaires dollars then he is in trouble. Without anyone willing to take his dollars for services his dollars are worthless (see the falling dollar atm)"

Are you agreeing or diasagreeing with me? The only part I really object to in this is that the rich claim ownership or whatever. Do you mean patents?

More and more you sound like a market anarchist.

Quick! Start talking about the labor theory of value or something, before you become an evil, greedy, selfish, capitalist like me! :p

1OFMANY

03-14-2008, 03:21 PM

OK..lets settle it this way.

Everyone who wants universal health care can pay for it. Everyone who doesnt is exempt. Fair??

Lights

03-15-2008, 12:24 AM

OK..lets settle it this way.

Everyone who wants universal health care can pay for it. Everyone who doesnt is exempt. Fair??

Doesn't really work. The top 1% own everything, and they will simply opt out.

eternaltriangle

03-17-2008, 07:40 PM

No there shouldn't. Universal healthcare is just another sickening socialist institution.

If it is wrong for one man to steal, than why is it okay if he's a tax collector? THREATENING PEOPLE WITH VIOLENCE, TO FORCE THEM TO DO THINGS is immoral unless used in self defense. It isn't free helthcare, someone has to pay for it.

Instead of having businesses compete for lower prices, higher wages, and better quality, you'd rather just have a state run program, which doesn't compete on a freemarket. Great idea. Lots of incentive for progress and efficiency there, when you get your money automatically through force.:rolleyes:

So, is healthcare more expensive in the US? Yes. You pay more as an individual in the US than the average person would pay, through their taxes, in a country with socialized medicine.

Per capita spending (public and private) on healthcare in international dollars:
USA: 5,274
Canada: 2,931
Germany: 2,817
Japan: 2,133
UK: 2,160
Italy: 2,166

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But, is it less expensive to the US taxpayer to just have medicare and medicaid, while maintaining a private system?

Share of GDP spent on healthcare (just by the government, including state and federal) - note that US GDP per capita is larger:

USA: 5.5%
Canada: 6.6%
Germany: 7.9%
Japan: 5.7%
UK: 5.8%
Italy: 5.6%
France: 7.3%

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So it looks like, relative to other G-7 countries, the US taxpayer doesn't even pay less in taxes.

But surely, spending as much as they do, Americans are serviced with the world's best healthcare?

Life expectancy at birth, total population (these numbers seem low, so it may include infant mortality)

Japan: 82
France: 80.59
Canada: 80.34
Italy: 79.94
Germany: 78.95
UK: 78.7
USA: 78

Oh but lifestyle choices play a big part here too - and Americans are the fattest country (I would argue that that might have to do with the fact that Americans are less likely to engage in preventive checkups, etc. and find out that they are cruising for a triple bypass until it is too late). Moreover, fewer Americans smoke than in any of the other countries I listed. Americans also live a larger proportion of their lives in ill health than elsewhere.

So costs are higher and results are worse? Hmm... But what variable exists that would explain why, alone in the world, the US has such poor results?

Snowdragon

05-15-2008, 11:19 AM

I am FOR universal healthcare, I believe that it's a better investment than throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq (a black hole).

Ool

05-16-2008, 04:55 AM

A good idea in principle, but almost never in practice. Countries based on such systems tend to end up with a burgeoning healthcare bureaucracy which swallows up the bulk of the funds intended for patient care, or it is run by boards which direct centralized funding into the wrong areas, because they lack fundamental clinical expertise.

As opposed to the profit-oriented bureaucracy in the US, which is perfectly streamlined, efficient, and cheap...?

It is better to be a bit inefficient than it is to be a bit ineffective...

zerrk

05-16-2008, 09:10 AM

Jakalwarrior

05-16-2008, 12:31 PM

Just want to note that this horrible crappy poor state of Louisiana has a program to pay your tuition if you get above an 18 on the ACT and get a decent GPA. So I got that + scholarships and got payed to goto college.

My area also has a sliding scale hospital that will never turn anyone away. I went in for MRSA cellulitis (turned out to be something autoimmune) twice and one emergency room visit. They never billed me since I only make 25k a year in a two person houshold. They also have a dentist office, cancer treatment center, and mouth surgery, all that good stuff.

Practically socialized medicine already here... though you may wait 3 or 4 hours on your appointment date to be seen.

EsoteriEccentri

05-16-2008, 02:08 PM

Our doctors are paid a LOT. (Trust me, my aunt and uncle are consultants o.o Rather rich) I know that we pay the staff more than most countries, but I'm not sure quite how much.

Our hospitals on the NHS are actually very good, although still some opt for Bupu and other private medical services as they can afford it and feel its worth it for shorter waiting lists and fancier facilities.

But it means everyone gets health care, and richer people that opt for private still pay the taxes to the NHS and so it means that the poorer percentage of the population can get medical care too.

I'm English.