| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
SentimentalMercenary 
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 12 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 66
|
 Posted: August 31 2009 at 13:34 |
 Negoba wrote:
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
Negoba wrote:
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be. |
Your next step is to wonder why both these systems are "incomplete". The answer to this, as you would quickly find out, is because they are both bound by economic laws tied to the fact that we only have limited resources for unlimited needs. Only the government would have you believe that food or health is a right rather than a good, or that resources fall from the heavens and that all there is to do is collect and redistribute them.
Despite your capitalist propaganda rhetoric (government redistribution, give me a break) I will actually speak to the point. In a natural system where resources are scarce, the consumers will eventually kill each other for access. Which is what high crime and need for a police force represent. The have-nots start stealing or finding alternative means to attain goods, and where it encroaches on those that have's comfort or security, a militia is formed to imprison or kill the malcontents.
In a natural system where resources are scarce, you try to have as much competition as you can so that the system distributes the resources at maximum efficiency. That is economic law, want it or not. Marx once wrote exactly what you just said. He was wrong on a number of points sufficient to discard him as a serious inspiration.
Negoba wrote:
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. |
But why is the current system too expensive? Isnt it because of torts law, moral hazards such as medicare or medicaid, and other inflationary governement-based policies?
Tort law is part of the problem. But so is the entitlement of the American people. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of the excess expense, and most of the inflationary forces are NOT government-based but market based. Tort reform would be a government impediment on an industry (litigation) that lobbies must better than health care consumers. Even if it's a good idea, it's not going to happen.
I cannot figure out how you became so confident about frail claims such as "Medicare and Medicaid are not part of the excess expense, and most of the inflationary forces are NOT government-based". I need a clue I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
- Karl Popper
|
 |
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 13:32 |
Epignosis wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ... |
Not a bad way of putting it.
Tax dollars pay for police, who will come to one's home in case of a break-in, which could cause a citizen to lose his or her life (for example).
Meningitis (for example) could be seen as an internal "intruder" that could also be combated by tax dollars.
Interesting...
|
One of the cartoons illustrates the other point, we already have "socialized" medicine. It's just a matter of who gets to be in charge of our communal pot of money.
I am personally for a national plan where everyone can get basic care (not necessarily best care) regardless of who they are a la the VA, AND (AND) that people can then pay for better if they have the means and desire. |
I think this is reasonable and doable.
Believe it or not, I'm actually opposed (personally) to health insurance. It's bad bet hedging, ultimately. Why pay $600 a month for my family when we all went to the doctor a total of 8 times that year? 
"But Epignosis, what if you get cancer? What if you get injured? What if you develop a sentient growth in your butt?"
My response is always the same:
"What if a meteor crashes into your house and destroys your city?"
Health insurance companies cash in on fear, methinks...I don't object to their existence, but personally, I don't care for it.
|
I guess the logical extention to this is not to bother with a health service at all? Epi, would you not bother with insurance for your family then?
If you have a limited universal health care someone has to decide what is 'Basic Care' and this could be on a case by case basis? who makes that decision?
I am glad I live in blighty for the NHS with its faults.
Edited by akamaisondufromage - August 31 2009 at 13:38
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 13:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
I think this is reasonable and doable.
Believe it or not, I'm actually opposed (personally) to health insurance. It's bad bet hedging, ultimately. Why pay $600 a month for my family when we all went to the doctor a total of 8 times that year?
"But Epignosis, what if you get cancer? What if you get injured? What if you develop a sentient growth in your butt?"
My response is always the same:
"What if a meteor crashes into your house and destroys your city?"
Health insurance companies cash in on fear, methinks...I don't object to their existence, but personally, I don't care for it.
|
Insurance is for uncontrollable, rare events. Health care is something we all need for our entire lives. Even if a private entity is managing the pool of money, it should not be under anything looking like an insurance model. We all will get sick, the majority of us severely at least a few times in our lives. We need a health care system, not insurance reform. When people ask me if I like the current proposal, I say "No, it's too weak, it doesn't fix any of the basic problems." At the same time, if we do nothing, it will be like 1993 and the issue will just get back burnered again for 16 years and things will just get worse.
Edited by Negoba - August 31 2009 at 13:23
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 13:11 |
Negoba wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ... |
Not a bad way of putting it.
Tax dollars pay for police, who will come to one's home in case of a break-in, which could cause a citizen to lose his or her life (for example).
Meningitis (for example) could be seen as an internal "intruder" that could also be combated by tax dollars.
Interesting...
|
One of the cartoons illustrates the other point, we already have "socialized" medicine. It's just a matter of who gets to be in charge of our communal pot of money.
I am personally for a national plan where everyone can get basic care (not necessarily best care) regardless of who they are a la the VA, AND (AND) that people can then pay for better if they have the means and desire. |
I think this is reasonable and doable.
Believe it or not, I'm actually opposed (personally) to health insurance. It's bad bet hedging, ultimately. Why pay $600 a month for my family when we all went to the doctor a total of 8 times that year?
"But Epignosis, what if you get cancer? What if you get injured? What if you develop a sentient growth in your butt?"
My response is always the same:
"What if a meteor crashes into your house and destroys your city?"
Health insurance companies cash in on fear, methinks...I don't object to their existence, but personally, I don't care for it.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 13:06 |
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
Negoba wrote:
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be. |
Your next step is to wonder why both these systems are "incomplete". The answer to this, as you would quickly find out, is because they are both bound by economic laws tied to the fact that we only have limited resources for unlimited needs. Only the government would have you believe that food or health is a right rather than a good, or that resources fall from the heavens and that all there is to do is collect and redistribute them.
Despite your capitalist propaganda rhetoric (government redistribution, give me a break) I will actually speak to the point. In a natural system where resources are scarce, the consumers will eventually kill each other for access. Which is what high crime and need for a police force represent. The have-nots start stealing or finding alternative means to attain goods, and where it encroaches on those that have's comfort or security, a militia is formed to imprison or kill the malcontents.
Negoba wrote:
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. |
But why is the current system too expensive? Isnt it because of torts law, moral hazards such as medicare or medicaid, and other inflationary governement-based policies?
Tort law is part of the problem. But so is the entitlement of the American people. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of the excess expense, and most of the inflationary forces are NOT government-based but market based. Tort reform would be a government impediment on an industry (litigation) that lobbies must better than health care consumers. Even if it's a good idea, it's not going to happen.
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:57 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ... |
Not a bad way of putting it.
Tax dollars pay for police, who will come to one's home in case of a break-in, which could cause a citizen to lose his or her life (for example).
Meningitis (for example) could be seen as an internal "intruder" that could also be combated by tax dollars.
Interesting...
|
One of the cartoons illustrates the other point, we already have "socialized" medicine. It's just a matter of who gets to be in charge of our communal pot of money.
I am personally for a national plan where everyone can get basic care (not necessarily best care) regardless of who they are a la the VA, AND (AND) that people can then pay for better if they have the means and desire.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
SentimentalMercenary
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 12 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 66
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:56 |
Negoba wrote:
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be. |
Your next step is to wonder why both these systems are "incomplete". The answer to this, as you would quickly find out, is because they are both bound by economic laws tied to the fact that we only have limited resources for unlimited needs. Only the government would have you believe that food or health is a right rather than a good, or that resources fall from the heavens and that all there is to do is collect and redistribute them.
Negoba wrote:
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. |
But why is the current system too expensive? Isnt it because of torts law, moral hazards such as medicare or medicaid, and other inflationary governement-based policies?
|
|
Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
- Karl Popper
|
|
Jimbo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: Helsinki
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:49 |
|
Yes. I will abstain from saying anything else, I'm not sure I'd be able to hold my temper.
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:48 |
|
^^ Nice cartoon Mr BArtfast
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:48 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ...
|
Not a bad way of putting it.
Tax dollars pay for police, who will come to one's home in case of a break-in, which could cause a citizen to lose his or her life (for example).
Meningitis (for example) could be seen as an internal "intruder" that could also be combated by tax dollars.
Interesting...
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 12:43 |
|
I voted yes. It's a complex discussion, but I think that some form of basic health care should be free for everyone. The difficult part is where to draw the line ...
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 11:54 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
J-Man
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 11:28 |
Epignosis wrote:
Negoba wrote:
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
I got a question for those who support universal health care :
What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later? |
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program. |
All right. Let's go with that model. I guarantee you health insurance companies will no longer exist. They are a business run for profit (sorry, but profit is not an ignoble thing). Force them to take everyone AND limit what they charge, and the "evil" businessmen who run the insurance companies will close shop and invest in something more productive, like...I don't know...taco stands.
Then everyone can pay their own way.
|
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:58 |
Epignosis wrote:
Negoba wrote:
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
I got a question for those who support universal health care :
What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later? |
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program. |
All right. Let's go with that model. I guarantee you health insurance companies will no longer exist. They are a business run for profit (sorry, but profit is not an ignoble thing). Force them to take everyone AND limit what they charge, and the "evil" businessmen who run the insurance companies will close shop and invest in something more productive, like...I don't know...taco stands.
Then everyone can pay their own way.
|
You're right. That's why having a for-profit manage a public service is doomed to fail.
For rich people like me (who went from my lower-middle class background to lower-upper class based mainly on the set of talents God gave me, in spite of my natural laziness), the answer is to buy catastrophic insurance (which actually functions as insurance) and pay for our routine health care out of our pocket. That is not an option for most Americans.
The Bible, among many sources of ancient wisdom, frown on the type of debt-based business upon which the U.S. is now run. For many of the ancient masters profit, is, in fact, evil.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
SentimentalMercenary
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 12 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 66
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:56 |
Negoba wrote:
Anyone who believes that the hard work is what makes you rich in a capitalist system is a complete fool.
It is but one of several factors, and not the most important. By far the most important is the cultural environment in which you were born into. You may find extraordinary exceptions to this, but this is the rule. If your parents never worked a steady job, the chance you will are much much less than if yours did. It's not just laziness. It's a culture.
Now, how do we change our culture to make it harder to take without giving back??? Without finding away to only allow contributing members of society to reproduce, I don't know how to fix that. |
I would agree and disagree. In a capitalist system, there are three factors that can make you rich, and none of them is more important than the others : your hard work, your starting position, and sheer luck. That's still a better system than arbitrary appointments and misery for all the others.
|
|
Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
- Karl Popper
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:47 |
Anyone who believes that the hard work is what makes you rich in a capitalist system is a complete fool.
It is but one of several factors, and not the most important. By far the most important is the cultural environment in which you were born into. You may find extraordinary exceptions to this, but this is the rule. If your parents never worked a steady job, the chance you will are much much less than if yours did. It's not just laziness. It's a culture.
Now, how do we change our culture to make it harder to take without giving back??? Without finding away to only allow contributing members of society to reproduce, I don't know how to fix that.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:46 |
Negoba wrote:
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
I got a question for those who support universal health care :
What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later? |
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program. |
All right. Let's go with that model. I guarantee you health insurance companies will no longer exist. They are a business run for profit (sorry, but profit is not an ignoble thing). Force them to take everyone AND limit what they charge, and the "evil" businessmen who run the insurance companies will close shop and invest in something more productive, like...I don't know...taco stands.
Then everyone can pay their own way.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:41 |
SentimentalMercenary wrote:
I got a question for those who support universal health care :
What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later? |
First of all, we do support food for everyone. There are some (also incomplete) systems for providing this....food stamps are much easier to obtain than an actual welfare check which is as it should be. Unfortunately the restrictions on the use of these vouchers are not as strict as they should be.
Second of all, health care is a resource that is too expensive in many cases for any individual to purchase for themselves. Even with simple savings from an average income, it is not reasonable to be able to pay for an average hospitalization (e.g. getting your gallbladder out) in the current system. Therefore, some way of pooling resources is necessary. The one we use now is run by for profit, rarely honest, accountants that do not have to take all comers. One option is making them take everyone and imposing cost limits, or by simply creating a government program.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:34 |
The Antique wrote:
So do you oppose taxes altogether? The only reason people have a right not to have money stolen from them is because we collectively agree that we have this right. I am making the argument that this right ends where it impedes our ability to provide basic services to people who cannot provide it for themselves.
The right stems very concretely from Article I Section VIII of the Constitution which details the very limited uses for which Congress may tax. Welfare systems certainly don't fit into this. Also the use of a graduated tax systems totally b*****dizes the whole ordeal. I'm for tax collection for basic manners much along the lines detailed in the Constitution, but only assuming it is done so as a flat tax.
I am not making this rich vs. poor. It is simply the case that, if more money is needed and the only way to get it is through taxes, the fairest way to obtain it is to tax most those with the most money, since it causes them the least harm.
I don't know how you speak of fair while identifying a group which is expected to shoulders others burdens under coercion from a government.
People work jobs based in part on their opportunities (going to college will get you a better job in general, but people born into poor families are much less likely to get this opportunity than people born into rich families).
As for natural abilities (in which I should not have included strength since it is very much dependent on the effort you put into it, way moreso than the others), yes, they can be improved, but no amount of hard work is going to turn me into an NBA star or a person with an IQ of 90 into a particle physicist.
So the general rule is to be defined by the most extreme cases? Swings from one end of the spectrum to another I'll admit are not going to occur. However, a wide amount of fluctuation is possible in the middle stages. Aside from a few savants you meet you'll find the smartest, most athletic, proficient people are the ones who have put the most time into their field be it economics, swimming, playing piano, whatever.
In addition, there are simply not enough well-paying jobs for everyone to make a reasonable living, and moreover there are low-paying jobs that need to be done (some of which are almost exclusively done by people born into poor families or born with low intelligence, such as janitors, at least in my personal experience).
If people all gravitated to "high paying jobs" the cost of these jobs would simply skyrocket and the need would inevitably be filled. Also, there will always be lazy, bottom feeders in society, as well as unfortunate cases of good people drawing a short straw which I think are fewer than people care to admit.
For these reasons, the distribution of wealth in a capitalist system will inevitably be arbitrary and unfair to a very great degree, and thus it is not immoral to take money from those this system benefits in order to help those it shafts.
You haven't demonstrated this, and the conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The distribution being arbitrary gives the government no moral or certainly constitutional right to correct it. The distribution of blue eyes is arbitrary in a population, but the government hardly has a right to force eye transplants so that everyone may have one blue and one brown eye for some patchwork equality. I know it's a laughable example, but clearly you can think of many horrendous acts which could be justified with that argument. But while as a society we maintain there's something off limits about ones body, we have lost that the same applies to ones money. We have begun to see it as a mere purchasing tool than the direct fruits of ones labor deserving of the same reservations. |
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
SentimentalMercenary
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 12 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 66
|
Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:32 |
I got a question for those who support universal health care :
What makes healthcare so much more important than access to food that makes you support the provision of the former by the government, but not of the later?
|
|
Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
- Karl Popper
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you support universal healthcare?
