Do you support universal healthcare?

Epignosis wrote: It gets harder and harder to talk to you for five reasons, and all five are present in this one post: The T wrote: ^As always Robert, your example is supposed to explain every damn poor (or not that poor) family in this country. 1. You take what I say and make absolutes out of them. My examples are just that- examples (or in this case, counterexamples).  I don't claim to speak for all poor people, but you do.  You expressed a positive association between being poor and being fat.  I provided not one, but three counterexamples to this, and a scholarly article.  That's three more examples and one more article than you've provided in this discussion backing up your assertion. I already recognized that correlation is not absolute and is not equal to causation. If I make absolutes out of your examples is because you use YOUR situation to explain why this or that should or shouldn't happen. About your examples, I talked about them. You actually helped me see the error on using just my situation to explain things (remember when I opened the healthcare thread based on my mother's denial of insurance?) The T wrote: Just like when we were talking about unemployment benefits, the fact that you didn't take them was supposed to mean everyone could do the same. 2. You don't listen to what I say. I did take unemployment benefits, and I said I did.  In fact, it was in response to a question you directly asked me.  Here's the conversation, as you've clearly forgotten. My bad then. I stand corrected.  The T wrote: You had a mom and a dad. Let's just imagine only one. Working at your beloved Walmart 40 hours a week and then in some restaurant. Arriving late at home. Dead tired. Yes, she should cook a proper meal. But for that she has to have gone and bought it too. All of this is time that this person maybe doesn't entirely have. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe she just can't do it. 3. You use hypothetical anecdotes instead of data. How pitiful do you want the person to be, T?  We can go further if you like.  Maybe this woman has no arms or legs and is blind.  Maybe she gets robbed everyday.  Maybe her kids are hateful towards her.  Maybe she is allergic to peanuts.  Maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe.  None of this changes my principles, sorry, and I think it's rather insulting that you reduce people to the sum of their worst circumstances. Is my example really THAT extreme? A woman with two jobs and fatherless children? Wow...  The T wrote: And let's assume the parents that do this are stupid and/or lazy. They fed their children fast food all the time. Their children grow up obese or almost so. This children have learned that the best answer for food problems is fast food (besides the fact that they have already learned to please their stomachs with high sugar and fat foods...) Are they also obese because they're lazy and/or stupid? 4. You continue to assume more money fixes a problem (and that this money must come from the government, which is money taken from taxpayers). Money doesn't cure stupid.  If you are obese because you are stupid or lazy, then more money won't fix that.  As I've said a hundred times, if you took all the money in the country and redistributed it evenly, we'd have socioeconomic disparity in ten years, maybe five, maybe even less.  How do people win millions in the lottery and wind up broke and worse off than they were?  Because creating and managing wealth is a skill that some people have and most of us don't. When did I say that? Now you're drawing conclusions from my words. Healthcare for these people is just "more money"? I'm not saying "give the poor and obese a piece of the rich's pie!"... I'm asking for healthcare, tax-funded, universal healthcare. I totally agree with the rest of your statement.  The T wrote: Shouldn't they have some kind of access to care? Should they at least have access to some education that re-teaches them how to live a healthy live? They have access to at least 13 years of government education.  Thirteen!  And lots of Americans are still poor and fat?  Interesting that we have a robust welfare system (40% of the budget according to the chart in the other thread) and we also have government-run education where students go for at least thirteen years.  We are practically already living the liberal dream.  You've said it yourself: public education is flawed. It has to be bettered to include education on healthy lifestyles. The "liberal dream"... We're SO far from that... Of course "liberal" compared to your views is just a hint left from hard-right... The T wrote: Or Having a heart attack and dying is pretty cheap, I hear?  (again, no emoticon...) 5. You don't get when I'm being sarcastic unless I use an emoticon. I guess this could be my problem, so I will work on it.  I'll practice now. You annoy me.

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ^As always Robert, your example is supposed to explain every damn poor (or not that poor) family in this country. Just like when we were talking about unemployment benefits, the fact that you didn't take them was supposed to mean everyone could do the same.  You had a mom and a dad. Let's just imagine only one. Working at your beloved Walmart 40 hours a week and then in some restaurant. Arriving late at home. Dead tired. Yes, she should cook a proper meal. But for that she has to have gone and bought it too. All of this is time that this person maybe doesn't entirely have. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe she just can't do it.  And let's assume the parents that do this are stupid and/or lazy. They fed their children fast food all the time. Their children grow up obese or almost so. This children have learned that the best answer for food problems is fast food (besides the fact that they have already learned to please their stomachs with high sugar and fat foods...) Are they also obese because they're lazy and/or stupid? Shouldn't they have some kind of access to care? Should they at least have access to some education that re-teaches them how to live a healthy live?  Or Having a heart attack and dying is pretty cheap, I hear?  (again, no emoticon...) They have access to education. There are libraries, are there not? Everyone keeps repeating that it's hard to pull yourself out of poverty. Of course it is. It's hard to be an architect too, but you're not advocating free architecture tutoring for anyone who wants it (are you?) Anything worth doing is going to be hard work. Henry criticizes me for saying that most poor people are poor by choice, but I have worked minimum wage jobs with very poor people before. Sure they complain a lot, but what are they doing to better their situation? For the ones I knew, not much. Instead of spending their free time learning a marketable skill they went to the movies, or played video games or , yes, bought lottery tickets. I realize this does not describe everyone who is poor. As I said before, some people's situations are beyond their control. But when I was earning minimum wage, I was constantly reading, studying, applying for better jobs. Rob has had a similar experience. And now we are both doing better. I'm sorry, but I have limited sympathy for people who have resigned themselves to a life of poverty and make no effort to escape from it. Assuming you're talking about what currently is re tertiary education, and not what many Libertarians think should be, this education would of course be funded predominantly by taxes yes? (Something they appear to be diametrically opposed to) The only snag with meritocracies is that you can't enter the race without a ticket. Bugger....wrong thread You assume wrong. I'm talking about books. There are libraries (which I don't believe would disappear without government funding, but that's another topic) and there are book stores that let you sit and read for hours without bothering you, and there is the internet, also available at libraries. There is no obstacle to learning if one is so inclined. You assume people must be forced to learn, but I don't. The information is available. All they have to do is avail themselves of it. People have to be at least encouraged  to learn...  Or be raised in a learning-friendly environment...  Children of those vide-game-movie parents you're talking about, at least a good percentage of them, will learn only that that's the way to live life...

That's nonsense. Everyone is aware that there are more successful people than them. Everyone is aware that to become more successful, you need an education. I would think that living in dire poverty should be enough of an incentive to learn, wouldn't you? With a half hour's research you can find tons of ways to make money. You could write a book about how awful it is to be poor in America. I'm sure you could find a publisher for that, and it would cost you absolutely zero. YOu could teach yourself to draw and make t-shirts to sell on the internet, again the cost is zero. You could get a book from the library about accounting, study for a year, take the CPA test and walk into a high paying job with little difficulty. The cost is no more than the cost of the CPA exam. People are not slaves to their circumstances. If they want change, hey have the power to affect it. I don't see why you're blaming "the system" for their unwillingness to shake themselves out of their environment.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: People are not slaves to their circumstances. If they want change, hey have the power to affect it. I don't see why you're blaming "the system" for their unwillingness to shake themselves out of their environment. And thus, the fundamental basis of all your ideas. You give the individual way too much credit. Absurd.

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: It gets harder and harder to talk to you for five reasons, and all five are present in this one post: The T wrote: ^As always Robert, your example is supposed to explain every damn poor (or not that poor) family in this country. 1. You take what I say and make absolutes out of them. My examples are just that- examples (or in this case, counterexamples).  I don't claim to speak for all poor people, but you do.  You expressed a positive association between being poor and being fat.  I provided not one, but three counterexamples to this, and a scholarly article.  That's three more examples and one more article than you've provided in this discussion backing up your assertion. I already recognized that correlation is not absolute and is not equal to causation. If I make absolutes out of your examples is because you use YOUR situation to explain why this or that should or shouldn't happen. About your examples, I talked about them. You actually helped me see the error on using just my situation to explain things (remember when I opened the healthcare thread based on my mother's denial of insurance?) The T wrote: Just like when we were talking about unemployment benefits, the fact that you didn't take them was supposed to mean everyone could do the same. 2. You don't listen to what I say. I did take unemployment benefits, and I said I did.  In fact, it was in response to a question you directly asked me.  Here's the conversation, as you've clearly forgotten. My bad then. I stand corrected.  The T wrote: You had a mom and a dad. Let's just imagine only one. Working at your beloved Walmart 40 hours a week and then in some restaurant. Arriving late at home. Dead tired. Yes, she should cook a proper meal. But for that she has to have gone and bought it too. All of this is time that this person maybe doesn't entirely have. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe she just can't do it. 3. You use hypothetical anecdotes instead of data. How pitiful do you want the person to be, T?  We can go further if you like.  Maybe this woman has no arms or legs and is blind.  Maybe she gets robbed everyday.  Maybe her kids are hateful towards her.  Maybe she is allergic to peanuts.  Maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe.  None of this changes my principles, sorry, and I think it's rather insulting that you reduce people to the sum of their worst circumstances. Is my example really THAT extreme? A woman with two jobs and fatherless children? Wow... It's not the extremity of the situation.  It's just that this summarizes my view, and so your examples are moot: 1. There will always be poor people (because creating and managing wealth is a skill that most don't have). Agreed. 2. It is fundamentally not the US government's place to make poor people not be poor. I think government should not do that, but should make sure everyone has equal opportunities at least to try to do it... It is the government's place to:      a) Protect the life of citizens (which is why we must have a robust military, maintained infrastructure)I see healthcare as a basic extension of this.  You're happy spending on warfare but strict on spending on welfare.. I differ.       b) Protect the property of citizens (which is why I am opposed to income taxes and wealth redistribution)Why is property so important? Please, no "then give away your belongings to the first one that comes" answer... Which principle guides you here?       c) Protect the rights of citizens (which is why the government may run the court system)And I see the access to healthcare as a right.  The T wrote: And let's assume the parents that do this are stupid and/or lazy. They fed their children fast food all the time. Their children grow up obese or almost so. This children have learned that the best answer for food problems is fast food (besides the fact that they have already learned to please their stomachs with high sugar and fat foods...) Are they also obese because they're lazy and/or stupid? 4. You continue to assume more money fixes a problem (and that this money must come from the government, which is money taken from taxpayers). Money doesn't cure stupid.  If you are obese because you are stupid or lazy, then more money won't fix that.  As I've said a hundred times, if you took all the money in the country and redistributed it evenly, we'd have socioeconomic disparity in ten years, maybe five, maybe even less.  How do people win millions in the lottery and wind up broke and worse off than they were?  Because creating and managing wealth is a skill that some people have and most of us don't. When did I say that? Now you're drawing conclusions from my words. Healthcare for these people is just "more money"? I'm not saying "give the poor and obese a piece of the rich's pie!"... I'm asking for healthcare, tax-funded, universal healthcare. I totally agree with the rest of your statement.  You didn't say it explicitly.  You said two or more things that implied it.  Unless you're just talking to be talking, I am supposed to be drawing conclusions from your words.  Nevertheless, this is basic liberal ideology: Money funneled through the government corrects societal ills.  No. Money funneled through the government should make sure everyone has some opportunities.  And lol at pie since I watched the Penn & Teller video this morning..."I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me!"   You should watch Glenn Beck's program when actually had pies and started splitting them to explain his points...  The T wrote: Shouldn't they have some kind of access to care? Should they at least have access to some education that re-teaches them how to live a healthy live? They have access to at least 13 years of government education.  Thirteen!  And lots of Americans are still poor and fat?  Interesting that we have a robust welfare system (40% of the budget according to the chart in the other thread) and we also have government-run education where students go for at least thirteen years.  We are practically already living the liberal dream.  You've said it yourself: public education is flawed. It has to be bettered to include education on healthy lifestyles. The "liberal dream"... We're SO far from that... Of course "liberal" compared to your views is just a hint left from hard-right... I think the government has no business in education.  I used to think it at least could, but after being both a student and a teacher, I know better. As far as liberal dream goes, you missed my qualifier- "practically."  We have 13 years of education, yet there are still poor and fat people.  We have government regulated businesses (including moves to tell us what we can and can't eat), yet there are still poor and fat people.  We have about 40% of our budget (taxpayer money) going to welfare programs run by the government, yet there are still poor and fat people.  We have minimum wage that keeps increasing, yet there are still poor and fat people. So removing all of that is the answer? Or improving it?  Now do you seriously think that government-run health care is going to help alleviate poverty and obesity? No. I ask for universal health care. Not for an ugly government official going to your house, taking your money, handing it to a fat and poor guy, and suddenly making him thin and rich in the process.  Giving individuals way too much credit?  I think we've given our government way too much credit, and for far too long. I'll give you for christmas a ticket to Cuba... THEN you'll see... The T wrote: Or Having a heart attack and dying is pretty cheap, I hear?  (again, no emoticon...) 5. You don't get when I'm being sarcastic unless I use an emoticon. I guess this could be my problem, so I will work on it.  I'll practice now. You annoy me.  When you have to deal with sarcasm-machines Pat Shield and Mom, you tend to lose it...  Now you're using an emoticon, which means you are NOT being sarcastic... I got you now Mr Epignosis...   I'm not annoyed.

thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ^As always Robert, your example is supposed to explain every damn poor (or not that poor) family in this country. Just like when we were talking about unemployment benefits, the fact that you didn't take them was supposed to mean everyone could do the same.  You had a mom and a dad. Let's just imagine only one. Working at your beloved Walmart 40 hours a week and then in some restaurant. Arriving late at home. Dead tired. Yes, she should cook a proper meal. But for that she has to have gone and bought it too. All of this is time that this person maybe doesn't entirely have. Maybe it's laziness. Maybe she just can't do it.  And let's assume the parents that do this are stupid and/or lazy. They fed their children fast food all the time. Their children grow up obese or almost so. This children have learned that the best answer for food problems is fast food (besides the fact that they have already learned to please their stomachs with high sugar and fat foods...) Are they also obese because they're lazy and/or stupid? Shouldn't they have some kind of access to care? Should they at least have access to some education that re-teaches them how to live a healthy live?  Or Having a heart attack and dying is pretty cheap, I hear?  (again, no emoticon...) They have access to education. There are libraries, are there not? Everyone keeps repeating that it's hard to pull yourself out of poverty. Of course it is. It's hard to be an architect too, but you're not advocating free architecture tutoring for anyone who wants it (are you?) Anything worth doing is going to be hard work. Henry criticizes me for saying that most poor people are poor by choice, but I have worked minimum wage jobs with very poor people before. Sure they complain a lot, but what are they doing to better their situation? For the ones I knew, not much. Instead of spending their free time learning a marketable skill they went to the movies, or played video games or , yes, bought lottery tickets. I realize this does not describe everyone who is poor. As I said before, some people's situations are beyond their control. But when I was earning minimum wage, I was constantly reading, studying, applying for better jobs. Rob has had a similar experience. And now we are both doing better. I'm sorry, but I have limited sympathy for people who have resigned themselves to a life of poverty and make no effort to escape from it. Assuming you're talking about what currently is re tertiary education, and not what many Libertarians think should be, this education would of course be funded predominantly by taxes yes? (Something they appear to be diametrically opposed to) The only snag with meritocracies is that you can't enter the race without a ticket. Bugger....wrong thread You assume wrong. I'm talking about books. There are libraries (which I don't believe would disappear without government funding, but that's another topic) and there are book stores that let you sit and read for hours without bothering you, and there is the internet, also available at libraries. There is no obstacle to learning if one is so inclined. You assume people must be forced to learn, but I don't. The information is available. All they have to do is avail themselves of it.

Ok, I don't disagree with the autodidactic route at all and as you say there is a wealth of information out there at no cost. What I don't buy however (and this perhaps really belongs in the libertarian thread) is that without tax funded tertiary education there are many critters more than capable of fulfilling their potential who will never get the chance under your libertarian 'tax is theft' ideals. I never implied, inferred or assumed that people have to be forced to learn. Like yourself I have very little sympathy for those who are capable of alleviating their current situation but choose not to.

Okay, a few fundamentals to address here...

First of all, why do I trust the government but distrust charities?  Now, bear with me on this one...

We are the government.  Or at least we should be.  There is this incredibly popular and incredibly destructive rhetoric in the USA that the government is some colossal shadow organization that is seeking to control our lives.  However, these are our elected officials.  They were put into office by us.  This means that, should they perform inadequately, we will remove them from office and find someone else.  The people of a democratic nation are in charge of their own destinies...or at least that was the intention of this particular system of governance.  If it no longer functions in this way, then it should be rectified...by us.  I believe in Socialism, and part and parcel to socialist reform is the transparency of government and the acknowledgment that the government exists to serve the citizens.  Ironically, neo-cons whine and bitch about Big Government, while simultaneously supporting pseudo-dictators (Bush) and, moreover, the oligarchy of wealth and privilege.  Then there are the libertarians, which are a whole different breed of over-privileged crazy.

Also, yes, we get 13 years of public education.  In which we learn practically nothing.  The public school systems in the United States are broken almost beyond repair.  Underfunded and ignored, plagued by such destructive legislation as No Child Left Behind, and (in many cases) teaching out of schoolbooks that are a decade old or more.  Almost more than I support any other line of reform, I advocate for the complete reevaluation of our public school system. It needs to be fixed, and soon.

Also...are you seriously saying that libraries would just randomly 'go on existing' without the support of our tax dollars?  Um...really?  I'll let you in on a little secret: the conservatives LOVE the lower class.  It's an entire legion of undereducated, exploited workhorses that the upper class can manipulate.  They justify it by claiming that 'anyone can succeed who puts their mind to it' and go on exploiting the lower class with clear consciousnesses.  If you took away tax dollars from libraries, they would cease to exist.  This would increase the stratification between the upper an lowers classes tenthfold.  The middle class would vanish as their means of acquiring free knowledge vanished.  Then the neo-cons and libertarians would have what they always wanted: an entire class of slaves to do their bidding.  Then they could finally make good on their threats of disposing of illegal immigrants (which they also secretly love, almost as much as they love complaining about them) and simply feed off the poverty and desperation of the vast American lower class.  Genius.

Finally, this whole correlation between being overweight and being poor...there is certainly some correlation, but the supposed 'obesity epidemic' in this country is largely a fabricated crises, designed to reinforce body stereotypes and make people spend countless millions of exercise equipment, diets, and other aspects of the massive diet industrial complex.  In many ways it's a cultural phantasm.  By the by, did you know that going by the body mass index, Brad Pitt is obese?  He should really do something about that, geez.

Epignosis wrote: To bring this closer to topic, let me raise this scenario (since T is fond of the hypothetical ): The USA has decided health care is a fundamental right and that everyone is entitled to it.  All non-elective procedures, doctor's visits, and preventative care are performed free of charge to the patient. Most doctors, however, have quit the profession for whatever reason (let's say they start a cult and live off the land).  And for whatever reason, fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession.  In sum, there are very few doctors, and there are plenty of needy patients, and many people are dying of various conditions. Given that health care is a right, can (and should) the government force these doctors who abandoned the profession to take up their stethoscopes and walk treat the country's patients?

Edited by The T - September 24 2010 at 14:51

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: To bring this closer to topic, let me raise this scenario (since T is fond of the hypothetical ): The USA has decided health care is a fundamental right and that everyone is entitled to it.  All non-elective procedures, doctor's visits, and preventative care are performed free of charge to the patient. Most doctors, however, have quit the profession for whatever reason (let's say they start a cult and live off the land).  And for whatever reason, fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession.  In sum, there are very few doctors, and there are plenty of needy patients, and many people are dying of various conditions. Given that health care is a right, can (and should) the government force these doctors who abandoned the profession to take up their stethoscopes and walk treat the country's patients? I've never made up such a bizarre and improbable scenario. But I'll answer anyway.  Hence the wink, buddy.  Just messing with you. The government would have its own force of doctors who would provide healthcare.   Drawn from where?  And with what qualifications? And if suddenly 50% of the population is dying, yes, force them to treat them by all means. A few individualistic pricks shouldn't just go to an island knowing that people will suffer because of their act.  So you are cool with slavery?  Neat.  But all of this is hypothetical... In that, Lozlan's robot scenario is much more interesting.   No it isn't.  Lozlan's avatar is more interesting.

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: To bring this closer to topic, let me raise this scenario (since T is fond of the hypothetical ): The USA has decided health care is a fundamental right and that everyone is entitled to it.  All non-elective procedures, doctor's visits, and preventative care are performed free of charge to the patient. Most doctors, however, have quit the profession for whatever reason (let's say they start a cult and live off the land).  And for whatever reason, fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession.  In sum, there are very few doctors, and there are plenty of needy patients, and many people are dying of various conditions. Given that health care is a right, can (and should) the government force these doctors who abandoned the profession to take up their stethoscopes and walk treat the country's patients? I've never made up such a bizarre and improbable scenario. But I'll answer anyway.  Hence the wink, buddy.  Just messing with you. This scenario is too unlikely to warrant too much thinking.  The government would have its own force of doctors who would provide healthcare.   Drawn from where?  And with what qualifications?This scenario is too unlikely to warrant too much thinking. () Remember in my society not everything would be private. So there would be public hospitals. Staffed by whom? And if suddenly 50% of the population is dying, yes, force them to treat them by all means. A few individualistic pricks shouldn't just go to an island knowing that people will suffer because of their act.  So you are cool with slavery?  Neat.   This scenario is too unlikely to warrant too much thinking. But all of this is hypothetical... In that, Lozlan's robot scenario is much more interesting.   No it isn't.  Lozlan's avatar is more interesting.This scenario is too unlikely to warrant too much thinking.

You are theoretically okay with slavery.  That's all I have to know.  Emboldened for everyone's benefit.

The T wrote:

This scenario is too unlikely to warrant too much thinking.