Do you support universal healthcare?

^^ Nice cartoon Mr BArtfast

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Negoba - August 31 2009 at 13:23

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.

Many many young women have to have their gallbladder out. An unpredictable but common surgery, usually goes well and one night in the hospital. Anywhere from 10-30 thousand dollars charges. This isn't a meteor.....or an appendix - potentially deadly but routinely cared for.

Edited by Negoba - August 31 2009 at 13:45

I'm not sure because when it comes to some complex political issues I try to research the subject as much as possible before forming an opinion. I tend not to believe any media sources because I look at Fox News and see so many lies that I can't be sure whether CNN or MSNBC are saying equally false things.
If I had to pick one I'd be in favor of universal health care but that is due to a lack of proper research.

My wife (also a doctor) have been talking about ways to make this possible for people...most of my visits probably are worth about a dozen truly free range eggs....mmmmm. Not much chance of those in the middle of the city though.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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.

Because 10% of $10,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 are definitely equivalent burdens for people to bear (pick any percentage, whatever you think the flat tax should be, my point still stands).

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.

I speak of fair because those people, while paying more money, are not facing any greater of a burden because of this extra cost. They have more money, so they can afford to pay more. Moreover, need I remind you, we are part of a community. Helping out those who have less than you is something that needs to happen in a community. If people are too greedy to do that enough in order to get what needs to be done done, then the only alternative is for the government to coerce them. Not getting it done is defeatist and is not acceptable.

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.

Yes, fluctuation is possible in terms of what people can do with their natural assets, and yes, people who put in hard work are going to do better (as they should). But a lot of people work very hard, but do so in thankless jobs (due in part to their natural abilities/the situation into which they were born, and due to the fact that someone has to do those jobs), and are hardly able to make a living wage.

Pure free market capitalism is not a meritocracy based solely on how hard you work, and thus the division of wealth it creates is plagued by arbitrary, unfair inequalities.

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.

But people don't all gravitate to high-paying jobs and the pay for jobs like janitors is not skyrocketing. I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that all people with poorly-paying jobs are lazy bottom feeders, or that people who spend all day working two jobs just to feed their family, but who can't afford health insurance, deserve their situation. These people are not exceptions, they are common and it is not morally acceptable.

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.

It absolutely gives the government a moral right to correct it. Unlike blue eyes (which is indeed arbitrary), unequal wealth distribution has a profound negative effect on people's lives. It is this negative impact (coupled with the arbitrariness of the distribution) that gives the government it's moral right to correct the situation, not the arbitrariness alone. Moreover, stop treating this like an absolute principle. You can take ANY absolute moral principle and justify horrible things with it. I am not proposing hard and fast principles, just guidelines.

While high taxes may be prima facie wrong (aka to be avoided if possible), letting people die because they cannot afford health care is also prima facie wrong, and strikes me as far worse than those taxes.

I am fully convinced that not a single person on this forum knows what communism is.