Do you support universal healthcare?

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head.  So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you: A) A Horrible, horrible person, and Absolutely. If the reason is as frivolous as you suggest. B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved? Absolutely not. You could sell all your possessions, travel to Africa and pass out food to starving children, thereby saving there lives. You do not do so. Are you complicit in their deaths, since you could have saved them? Whoops, Rob totally preempted me. Sorry, Rob!

Because the fish rots from the head.  I can't believe I'm saying this, but go watch Dr. Horrible.  He's more right than he's wrong.

Seriously though!  The problem is with institutions.  We must be the change we seek, working from inside the imperfect system in order to make it perfect.  I remember when Bush 'won' the presidency: I was fairly outspoken, to the point of using curse words(!).  And every conservative I talked to said, "Well, why don't you leave the country then?'

Piffle.

Hunger in Africa will not be assuaged by me selling all my belongings and moving to a small, starving village.  It will be assuaged by raising international concern, drawing awareness to the continual destruction wrought by European colonialism, and working on vaccines for AIDS and malaria.  Many of the problems confronting Africa are attributable to post-colonial panic; how this is best dealt with I honestly don't know.  Whether we should demand that the countries that conquered and exploited them repay them in aid and infrastructure, or whether we should continue focusing on world charity organizations...obviously it's a complicated problem, since no one has solved it yet.  Currently I'm a big fan of microcredit, which promotes entrepreneurship in impoverished regions. 



Edited by Lozlan - September 25 2010 at 15:00

I actually have no problem with Tort reform.

Yes, random thought and I just like saying tort....
But since we're still going to have a private health plan system, I think it would encourage more to become doctors, and hopefully drive the price down.

Mmmmm this tort is delicious!

Lozlan wrote: JJLehto wrote: I actually have no problem with Tort reform. Yes, random thought and I just like saying tort.... But since we're still going to have a private health plan system, I think it would encourage more to become doctors, and hopefully drive the price down. Mmmmm this tort is delicious! Save some for me!

Oh, there's plenty to go around

That being said, I still support Universal Healthcare. I am convinced it won't happen in the US but still..
It also seems efficient and fair to me. You pay into it, you receive. Oh, and of course you no one can be denied for any reason. I thought the US was supposed to be fair. Seems to the most fair to me, and as we know sometimes fair isn't always pretty...


Edited by JJLehto - September 25 2010 at 19:55

The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way. 

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Rob, now I see how the Tea Party is so successful. Anyway, this gave me the idea for a poll. Let's see how many "slaverers" are here. (i'll create it later). By the way, let's say in this hypothetical world of yours there's just 10 doctors. If they don't come back, a whole lot of people will die since there is an epidemic. Put any large number that could be reasonably taken care by just 10 doctors. If there was a poll to decide whether they have to be forced to take care of these sick people, how would you vote? I'll participate in your poll if you explain two things to me: 1. How the Tea Party is so successful (they're not, relatively speaking) That was just a quick comment out of my ass, like your "Scenario" that you used to draw the conclusion that I'm pro-slavery. Seeing that you would answer NO to the hypothetical scenario in my hypothetical thread, I'd guess I could say "OMG you are in favor of death!!"  and 2. How your position isn't one of slavery. It might be. The doctors would be justly paid. they wouldn't be exploited. They just would be forced, OMG, to do something that they don't want to, for the benefit of much more people.  Now, let me do some explaining about why I think this way. you might be thinking "oh this guy who doesn't know sh*t comes here and talks and talks while I have been there, as a teacher, as an unemployed, etc, etc, etc" Whatever. Just as you and Llama used your exemplary examples (pun intended) in all this discussion, let me use mine.  10 years ago my sister had cancer. She's not one of those "bums". She has worked hard her entire damn life, she has been good to everybody, acted in charities and all of that. So she's not one of your "she can't pay because she plays video games" type, she's actually quite frugal. But she was diagnosed with the illness, and not in stage 1, but in stage 2, which required intensive treatment and rest. Yes, rest, that concept that probably can't be understood as necessary to recover from a serious illness. Luckily, it hadn't metastasized. She underwent all treatments. Weeks of chimotherapy. Then her company, as forced by law of the land, hold her position while she recovered in a place created for the effect, with the best care possible. She was just a student and a worker. She wasn't rich, not even middle class. She was just someone starting to build a career for herself.  And now she's in perfect health. With us, with her family, able to produce and work.    All of this happened because she lived in Germany.  If she had lived here, she would be bankrupt.  Speculation on your part. Very reasonable speculation.  Or dead. Speculation on your part. Probably. Though in debt for life.  < ="utf-8"> So yes, Mr.Principles, I think a just society is one where people are taken care of health-wise no matter who or what they are. Getting rich? Becoming powerful? That's up to each person's skills and desires... At least health care should be a benefit for everybody.  I'm damn glad that the system worked in a  way where she pretty much didn't spend one euro (or mark, I don't remember when the change occurred). Now she's ALIVE and capable of working and, with HER taxes, helping somebody else in the same situation, probably.  So if you ask me if I put "property" below health care, you can bet I do. I don't give a f**k if someone can't buy another gun to hunt deers because he has to pay taxes, if that saves a life. I'm glad I do it. If the dollars that I don't get in my pocket are helping somebody go to the doctor, I'm damn glad about it. I don't think "property" is the ultimate goal of life... Having the government protect it, OK. But the sh*t about "taxes are theft" and all that whining sound more to me like people who just crave their last dollar... Sorry, my view. Might be extremely wrong. Maybe in libertarian paradise things would be better. I'm not so sure.  Where did I say property is the ultimate goal, but more importantly, do you think you get to tell people what their ultimate goal should be?  No I don't. But when you hold property in such a high place I guess that's what your goal is. I'm probably wrong.   By the way, I've never had money, and probably never will.  I also don't categorically say "taxes are theft," either (so you continually repeating that canard and using loaded terms like "whining" is indeed a straw man, at least for me).  That said, taking people's money to give to people who didn't earn it is theft.  I don't know what warped definition of theft you have, but that's theft. Ok. I don't know what warped definition of taxes yours is that equates them (not always, as you said) to theft. More than half the entire world seems to agree with my definition of theft, which is, one that DOESN'T INCLUDE TAXES. There's actually just a few (well, much more than a few, sadly) people in the US (and I guess a few in other places) that really think taxes are theft.   Just because the government does it, doesn't make it morally right.  The government is an entity which is supposed to represent us. So taxes have been created by us. Congress is a body of our representatives. Likewise, forcing someone to work (whether they are compensated or not) is slavery.  I agree with that but your scenario, which doesn't prove anything, forced me to vote, according to your conclusion, like a slavery-friendly person. Pure and simple- no way around that. Well, in prisonsthey force people to work... If you believe the government can take property without permission to give to other people, you believe in organized theft, No, I believe in TAXES. And in solidarity. and if you believe the government can force doctors (against their will) to treat people, then you believe in organized slavery. I don't believe in it. You put a stupid scenario made specially to make a me look like I believe in it.  That's what it is, and you probably should have manned up to those definitions rather than try to wriggle out of them. I don't wriggle out of them. I say I voted YES. Under the stupidly extreme circumstances you depicted.  I've given my opinion about health care in the US, and I won't repeat it here except to say this: The issue is not one of just free market vs government takeover, but I am convinced a free market would lower costs and improve service- PURE SPECULATION. not one person here has shown why this wouldn't happen.  There are numerous factors that have created the situation we have now, and ironically enough, the stuff you liberals complain about with regard to health care is largely because of government regulations. Don't believe me? Here we go: 1. Medicare.  Created under President Johnson, Medicare is nothing more than a government-backed Ponzi scheme.  The government spends around $6 on seniors for every $1 spent on children, even though the poverty rate among children is higher.  Bernie Madoff got locked up, and yet the US government has 34 trillion dollars sitting off the balance sheet that future generations will have to pay.  Unemployment is still very high, and Baby Boomers are getting ready to retire.  Still think Medicare is sustainable?  The AARP (a senior's lobbying group) thinks the magic solution is to just lower the cost of health care, but that's not how basic economics work: When something is free for some people, demand increases, and so does the price for those who must pay for themselves and pay for the subsidized group.  Add to this the fact that people are living longer- about 7 years longer on average than when Medicare was first implemented. 2. Social Security. For much of the same reasons outlined above.  80 million baby boomers starting to retire, and an estimated $10 trillion shortfall.  3. The Housing Market.  This is where it really gets interesting.  Congress felt it was their duty to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (two of the largest government-sponsored lenders) give housing loans to disadvantaged groups- people who couldn't afford houses.  This artificially inflated the pool of home buyers, which in turn drives home prices up.  In addition, the federal reserve artificially lowered interest rates from 6.5% to 1%, and many more people who couldn't afford houses bought them anyway because it appeared the houses would continue to appreciate.  These new homeowners began borrowing against the equity in their houses, and businesses borrowed to take advantage of this amazing demand, and builders built millions of unwanted houses.  How did this all get started?  Through an act signed into law by the amazing Jimmy Carter, the government forced banks (i.e., got involved in business through government regulation) to give loans they would not have otherwise given.  This was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.  In a nutshell, this was "You better give loans to poor black people or you are a racist bank!"  Now, as we know, the bubble burst as subprime borrowers defaulted on their mortgages and the federal reserve was forced to raise interest rates.  Look what happened to those with adjustable rate mortgages - not so fair all of a sudden, is it? 4. US Debt.  America has to borrow money and selling new debt to investors to pay the interest on the national debt.  Let that sink in.  How can that possibly be a good thing?  Remember Bernie Madoff?  Madoff's clients tried to sell some of their apparently well-performing assets to offset other losses, and that's when the scam collapsed.  How long will it be before that happens to our nation?  Perhaps when China and other foreign creditors that want to stimulate their own economies try to spend their US treasury holdings... How can liberals be upset with Bernie Madoff when they support the exact same thing on a grander scale? These are just a few of the many, major, massive areas of government meddling that has led to or is leading to disaster, because the programs aren't sustainable.  How am I to have any confidence whatsoever in government-run health care? I can agree with these fails of government-run systems. I think reforms have to occur, specialists, not linked to the government OR insurance companies should work in solutions to the problems. Fix the system, yes, improve it. I don't see utter elimination of social programs is the answer.  After all, when we die, we don't take our "property" to our graves...  You don't take your life either. You entirely missed my point.  ( as a side note, according to wikipedia -we can use it now-, "Germany does well in international health outcomes comparisons. In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). It had a very lowinfant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births), and it was tied for eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at per 1,000 people (3.3). In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.[1] "  (Germany is a mixed system, but mostly government-funded)..Incredibly, people, doctors, didn't stop being doctors just because the system is not one without taxes...  By the way: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=37&country=DE#rowDE (amazingly, in number of doctors per habitants, the US doesn't even appear in the top list, even though here they are free and al of that, whereas in countries like Denmark and France there are lots of doctors per habitants... Strange how they haven't stopped being doctors even though their system is universal healthcare or similar...) That isn't strange.  I never said there would be a shortage of doctors.  I gave a hypothetical scenario to see if the participants in this debate, who are okay with taking money from people who earned it to give to those who didn't are equally okay with people being forced to work against their will.  That's all.  You can stop trying to analyze my made up scenario- it's not intended to be analyzed, it's intended to show that you are theoretically okay with slavery.Again, it proves something in extreme circumstances. Under the same scenario it would seem you might be ok with killing your own children (in a similar unlikely scenario where they're dying because doctors left the country and you don't want to force them to cure you). Does this prove anything? Does it prove you are a bad person? No.  I'm not quite sure what your point is with these numbers though. You have said that doctors without the incentive of making sh*t loads of money working in a full free market system would leave the profession. I see a country with a universal health care system with more doctors per capita than insurance-company paradise US. That's all.  Maybe if we educate doctors to fulfill the Hypocrates Oath instead of their pockets as the first priority your scenarios of doctors running away wouldn't necessarily happen... But what can we expect in a society where property is valued as the most important thing? Amazingly, is the most prosperous nation on Earth, not the healthiest of course...  Do you care more about how much a doctor makes or how much health care costs?  The second. What if a doctor could charge patients less and make more profit for himself? Excellent. I would like that. Where's the plan? There's a way for that to happen, but a government takeover of health care isn't it.Did any of your representatives (sorry, you're no republican)... did anyone in the opposition ever presented a plan? They just said "NO". That was their entire "health care reform: say no to Obamacare".  By the way it seems Obamacare is not the answer..  a little step in my direction maybe...  To put this "instead of their pockets" into perspective: "Since 1968, the average income for most Americans has doubled. The average income for doctors during that same time period was $180,000. It has not doubled."   More importantly, I'd recommend you read this short article before talking about how much doctors in the US make.  Some excerpts: According to the New England Journal of Medicine, average cost of medical school plus living expenses is approximately $225,000 USD if you attend a private school and $140,000 USD if you attend a public one. While some expenses may be met through grants and scholarships, many people leave medical school owing in excess of $100,000 USD, and this amount can increase if additional years of residency or training are required. Another reason why doctors make so much money or seem to is due to the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Some doctors will pay as much as a third of their salary [...] [...]the run of the mill doctor is not making a lot, and has put in a lot of sacrifice to receive the training they need. They work in high risk profession, which can be emotionally challenging and difficult, may remain in debt for many years[...] The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is without a doubt medical bills.  No question about that.  But here's the thing: 78% of people who filed bankruptcy had health insurance. Which further shows that the entire health care system here is CRAP. The entire thing is upside down. Pople in the richest nation on earth are bankrupt to pay medical bills, doctors make less than other professions, yet the insurance companies get bigger and richer... I'm all for changing all of this crap... Where is the plan... Where was the plan when Obamacare was being discussed? All I remember is a NO.  Sorry needed to do some explaining of why i think how I do.  It's cool.  I'm glad your sister is well.Thanks

The T wrote: Final question: you're ok with defense spending. How are we going to fund it? You said not all taxes are theft so I guess you would answer "taxes". What is the line that divides "taxes are theft" from "taxes are ok"?

Taxes for defense purposes are theft as well. No question about it. I only support it because I think the alternative is worse. At least Dean gave an explanation of why he thinks taxes are not theft. All you have done is say they aren't because all governments engage in them. You can admit that taxes are theft and still support taxes. You would just be saying that theft is justifiable under certain circumstances. Why don't you just say that?
Alternatively, can you provide a cogent explanation for why taxes are not theft, as Dean did (although I disagree with his conclusion, I respect him for having thought it out)? My argument is simply the following:

1. Theft is the taking of someone's property without consent.
2. My wages are my property.
3. Income tax takes part of my wages without my consent.
4. Therefore, income tax is theft.

Which part of this do you disagree with? I suspect it's 2, but why? What about estate tax, surely you can't disagree that my  estate is my property, can you?

If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum
They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper.
Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state)

Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper. Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state) Um...I realize you aren't from around here, but in the US, that's what liberals do, not Libertarians- reducing every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws.  Did you not see the nonsense a few pages ago from liberals who insisted the poor people were most likely to be fat because they were poor?  No that's correct I'm not American but when you say 'Liberal' you're indicating 'Socialist' or 'Left Wing' by any other definition applicable in the rest of the world? (outside the USA). I'm neither a socialist or a liberal - just a humanist who doesn't like humans much The rest of your commentary merely shows that you've no idea what a Libertarian is.  You don't have to earn wealth (as in the case of a bequeathing)- you just shouldn't have wealth taken from you by those who didn't earn it.  Not earning does not equal stealing. Au contraire, I do think I have a reasonable grasp of that political philosophy, the benchmark being a redistribution of power from a coercive state to that of voluntary associations. The rights that Libertarianism ascribes to the individual are life, liberty and property with all three being deemed 'natural inalienable rights' which unfortunately I think is disingenuous bollocks. If Ayn Rand is correct when she stated 'Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think' then yes, this inheritance lark is a real no-brainer. Your last sentence shows you know even less about the Ponzi scheme run here in the US.  People don't get what they put in- they get what anther generation is going to pay for.  And this is not sustainable. Agreed, I know squat about whatever the Ponzi scheme might be but irrespective of the iniquities of fraudulent investment schemes or the haplessness of your own current administration to correct same, my statement still stands: social security if run efficiently is just like any other insurance policy, you pay a premium for a future eventuality and are perfectly entitled to make a claim on its inception. Most prudent democracies forbid their elected governments from using such funding to meet any spending shortfalls e.g. budgetary deficits.

ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper. Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state) Um...I realize you aren't from around here, but in the US, that's what liberals do, not Libertarians- reducing every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws.  Did you not see the nonsense a few pages ago from liberals who insisted the poor people were most likely to be fat because they were poor?  No that's correct I'm not American but when you say 'Liberal' you're indicating 'Socialist' or 'Left Wing' by any other definition applicable in the rest of the world? (outside the USA). I'm neither a socialist or a liberal - just a humanist who doesn't like humans much The rest of your commentary merely shows that you've no idea what a Libertarian is.  You don't have to earn wealth (as in the case of a bequeathing)- you just shouldn't have wealth taken from you by those who didn't earn it.  Not earning does not equal stealing. Au contraire, I do think I have a reasonable grasp of that political philosophy, the benchmark being a redistribution of power from a coercive state to that of voluntary associations. The rights that Libertarianism ascribes to the individual are life, liberty and property with all three being deemed 'natural inalienable rights' which unfortunately I think is disingenuous bollocks. If Ayn Rand is correct when she stated 'Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think' then yes, this inheritance lark is a real no-brainer. Your last sentence shows you know even less about the Ponzi scheme run here in the US.  People don't get what they put in- they get what anther generation is going to pay for.  And this is not sustainable. Agreed, I know squat about whatever the Ponzi scheme might be but irrespective of the iniquities of fraudulent investment schemes or the haplessness of your own current administration to correct same, my statement still stands: social security if run efficiently is just like any other insurance policy, you pay a premium for a future eventuality and are perfectly entitled to make a claim on its inception. Most prudent democracies forbid their elected governments from using such funding to meet any spending shortfalls e.g. budgetary deficits.

People should save for themselves and their families, not allow the government to borrow money from them interest free in order to possibly pay them back later.  It is not a "future eventuality."  Social security programs here are running out fast.  Did you not see my analysis of it earlier?  It is robbery- nothing less.  I'm amazed people don't see social security for what it is- a total scam.

ExittheLemming wrote: ^ I think I'm getting a feel for this now. Libertarianism and its accompanying concepts invariably flourish in soil as abundantly rich in b.s. as that tended over by your elected representatives.

And Brisbanians must be dodgeball champions.