Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: ZenAndTheArt on November 12, 2012, 12:22 am
-
During the build up to the American election I saw a news report where some Republican voters were being asked what they thought about Obama's healthcare plans. One guy was saying "Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to support someone who hasn't properly planned for their future? I don't want a healthcare system, this is communism!". Which got old Zen thinking again...
Personally, I'm happy to pay whatever tax is needed to provide a healthcare system that cares for anyone. No matter the cost or how rich the patient is, I believe healthcare is an essential basic human right. And to me it makes sense, that if we all chip in a small amount each, then the cost is spread out and minimized for all of us. Even if I went my whole life without using the NHS, I'd still be happy I payed the tax £'s.
I'd like to hear your ideas (I'm always open to changing my mind), especially from any American cousins...
-
I'd like to see alopathic and natural medicine merge into the perfect symbiotic relationship
Preventative rather than symptomatic treatment
And yes, free health care for everyone
:)
-
I think at least a partially funded healthcare system is a must for any country. I'm in a country where the healthcare system is subsidised and is means tested. I think it's around 150k per family and then you have to pay a medicare levy surcharge which is around 2.5% if you don't have private health insurance. I mean, if a government didn't even have a social welfare policy on the agenda, what good are they really? They provide security and regulations which is fundamental, but they also aid in providing (well should anyway) equality and a certain amount of distribution of wealth.
Healthcare is one of the most important policies I believe personally, if it's not free for everyone, it should at least be affordable for low income earners. People forget the human element sometimes, which is really sad. I'd more than gladly pay a percentage of my salary so that everyone was able to access basic healthcare.
-
NHS should be standard in all countries. After all, you pay for the police to come and lock you up if you commit a crime...
Dank
-
I would have to agree with you Zen.
I also live in a country with a government funded healthcare system and I can say that even though it costs a lot of tax dollars to fund, most people here appreciate it and are even proud of it.
I myself haven't really used the health service, I'm fairly certain that I've given more that I've received from it but I don't mind at all, lest it be me one day in need of care.
One thing I don't think I'll ever understand from a lot of our American brothers is how they equate healthcare with government tyranny and a loss of some kind of freedom. It would be interesting to hear from someone who opposes government sanctioned healthcare and why.
-
The health of human being's should be paramount to everything, especially $$$
Anyone with a caring heart should know to look past their own monetary successes and do what they can to help their fellow man.
-
A partially funded maybe. I must be out of the norm to think that people should pay for their health care. Children always covered of course.
-
You silly derp-faced socialists (I don't want to be too insulting, I used to think along these lines once). You guys REALLY need to understand some economics.
Sure, free healthcare sounds awesome. But actually consider the logistics of it for a few seconds and use some critical thinking please.
Before I begin THE US IS NOT A FREE MARKET IN HEALTHCARE. The US government already spends over 50% of money spent on medical care and the AMA artificially restricts the number of doctors in the US rising prices astronomically.
Issues:
1) Health care is not free. There is a limited number of medical supplies, and a limited number of doctors. You must pay a price for the use of these things (for labour/materials put into equipment and time put into educating doctors). In a free market, shortages lead to higher prices, which discourages needless use of the system and encourages new players to enter the market - eventually. In a socialised system, shortages are shortages. You get stuck on waiting lists for months, sometimes years on end. People die on these waiting lists.
2) Why the fuck should I have to subsidize your bad behaviour? Someone chooses to eat like shit, not exercise, etc. and their health care costs are going to skyrocket. I myself work out 4/5 days a week, eat very healthily, moderate my intake of drugs to keep myself healthy - my health care costs are virtually non existent, so I'm going to be paying a lot more into the system than I'll ever get out of it. Funnily enough I think it's much healthier for society if people keep their personal responsibility instead of handing it off to mommy government - that's how we get shit like the War on Drugs, and hey if the state is paying for your health care, they kinda do have some say in what you put into your body.
3) In a free market, equipment and doctors are assets (they make money). In a socialized system, they are a liability (you got a fixed budget, need to divide it up - most hospitals budgets in nationalised systems do not change dynamically according to demand, whereas in a free market more demand at a hospital means more income for the hospital so they can adjust accordingly).
4) To pay for the health care, you need to either a) forcefully take money from people (theft through taxes) or b) force doctors to perform procedures under threat of force. Neither is moral.
5) A 'right' to health care? A right is what society will let you do without repurcussion, basically the inverse of law. Objects and physical things are not rights - stop using buzzwords like you know what they mean. It is immoral to suggest that others must be forced to provide you with things. Force is never moral except in response to other force.
All you people saying humans need to work together as a species have no concept of how humans actually interact at a social level. Socialism isn't always a bad thing - it's a great system between people you PERSONALLY KNOW, like family and friends, because if someone tries to be a free rider you're going to find out quickly and be able to cut them off/sort them out. Our brain can only track about 150-250 people (Dunbar's number), so when you try to put millions of people into one social group it's a massive clusterfuck without the natural social check and balances. People WILL become free riders on the system - it's in their personal self interest.
To those saying "oh but the children", why should I have to look after someone's kids just because they can't look after their own? Why did they have the kid in the first place if they can't afford it? This is highly irresponsible behaviour, and it needs to be discouraged. If someone is stupid enough to have a child when they shouldn't, that's their problem alone, not society's.
For those of you on your moral high horse saying "oh we must care about strangers" get your hand off it right now. You don't give a fuck about strangers, not because you're some sick person, but because you are human. Humans can only comprehend about 150-250 individuals and empathise with them. Just think about how you live your daily lives. You care about yourself, your family and your friends WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more than any random stranger.
People really need to have a cup of wake the fuck up.
-
You silly derp-faced socialists (I don't want to be too insulting, I used to think along these lines once). You guys REALLY need to understand some economics.
Sure, free healthcare sounds awesome. But actually consider the logistics of it for a few seconds and use some critical thinking please.
Before I begin THE US IS NOT A FREE MARKET IN HEALTHCARE. The US government already spends over 50% of money spent on medical care and the AMA artificially restricts the number of doctors in the US rising prices astronomically.
Issues:
1) Health care is not free. There is a limited number of medical supplies, and a limited number of doctors. You must pay a price for the use of these things (for labour/materials put into equipment and time put into educating doctors). In a free market, shortages lead to higher prices, which discourages needless use of the system and encourages new players to enter the market - eventually. In a socialised system, shortages are shortages. You get stuck on waiting lists for months, sometimes years on end. People die on these waiting lists.
2) Why the fuck should I have to subsidize your bad behaviour? Someone chooses to eat like shit, not exercise, etc. and their health care costs are going to skyrocket. I myself work out 4/5 days a week, eat very healthily, moderate my intake of drugs to keep myself healthy - my health care costs are virtually non existent, so I'm going to be paying a lot more into the system than I'll ever get out of it. Funnily enough I think it's much healthier for society if people keep their personal responsibility instead of handing it off to mommy government - that's how we get shit like the War on Drugs, and hey if the state is paying for your health care, they kinda do have some say in what you put into your body.
3) In a free market, equipment and doctors are assets (they make money). In a socialized system, they are a liability (you got a fixed budget, need to divide it up - most hospitals budgets in nationalised systems do not change dynamically according to demand, whereas in a free market more demand at a hospital means more income for the hospital so they can adjust accordingly).
4) To pay for the health care, you need to either a) forcefully take money from people (theft through taxes) or b) force doctors to perform procedures under threat of force. Neither is moral.
5) A 'right' to health care? A right is what society will let you do without repurcussion, basically the inverse of law. Objects and physical things are not rights - stop using buzzwords like you know what they mean. It is immoral to suggest that others must be forced to provide you with things. Force is never moral except in response to other force.
All you people saying humans need to work together as a species have no concept of how humans actually interact at a social level. Socialism isn't always a bad thing - it's a great system between people you PERSONALLY KNOW, like family and friends, because if someone tries to be a free rider you're going to find out quickly and be able to cut them off/sort them out. Our brain can only track about 150-250 people (Dunbar's number), so when you try to put millions of people into one social group it's a massive clusterfuck without the natural social check and balances. People WILL become free riders on the system - it's in their personal self interest.
To those saying "oh but the children", why should I have to look after someone's kids just because they can't look after their own? Why did they have the kid in the first place if they can't afford it? This is highly irresponsible behaviour, and it needs to be discouraged. If someone is stupid enough to have a child when they shouldn't, that's their problem alone, not society's.
For those of you on your moral high horse saying "oh we must care about strangers" get your hand off it right now. You don't give a fuck about strangers, not because you're some sick person, but because you are human. Humans can only comprehend about 150-250 individuals and empathise with them. Just think about how you live your daily lives. You care about yourself, your family and your friends WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more than any random stranger.
People really need to have a cup of wake the fuck up.
I do understand the free-rider principle, however that is inevitable in any society where there are recipients of any government benefit. Even in the workplace this concept applies, there are always going to be people that abuse the system.
You're going to the other end of the spectrum here. I can definitely see your point.
In point one, this is the fundamental point of economics, the concept of scarcity. Your point here is that you're saying there is a natural equilibrium point where the price the suppliers charge will balance out on what people will pay. But what's going to happen to the people that can't pay? I understand that healthcare is not free, but most governments subsidises medications that people buy. But is this problem you're referring to a shortage of skilled labor?? Could there not be an incentive to attract more doctors?? The pay is already substantial.. But I have also heard of people in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) dying in patient waiting rooms because they didn't have insurance or couldn't prove that they could pay for it?? What seems more fair here?
Point 2 - I don't think you can really put down all diseases and health problems people face down to bad behavior. Its true that 1/3 of us are going to die from cancer which does not discriminate. Considering you go to the gym 4/5 times a week.. I'm assuming that you may take protein supplements and such. There is a link between high doses of protein are linked to colon cancer.. Usually to test this and to monitor it, a colonoscopy is usually required every two years.. If you can't afford it... is it just bad luck?? Bite the bullet and risk the cancer?
Point 3 - There wasn't talk of a completely free healthcare.. well I wasn't saying that anyway.. But if something is partially subsidised, it's more about giving more people access to it. If the case of a completely free economy for healthcare, that means that there will be a high percentage of people that would not be able to receive any treatment at all... Are you saying that the privileged and middle income earners and people that can afford it are the only ones that should pay?? What if I was studying to be a doctor or another in demand job to help progress society, but I got sick and my mother was too poor to pay for me to go to the doctor, is it just tough luck, see you later??
Point 4 - Theft through taxes sounds a little stupid tbh.
It's a little ignorant to think that absolutely no one that you know if going to need health care at some stage... If I met someone on the street or if my best friend was telling me that his aunty I've never met was dying of some disease... I would feel sorry for them and wish that there would be something I could do. Even if you are going on just one disease, 1/3 of your 250 people you know so about 83 people, would require cancer treatment.
This sounds so far out.. If you're talking about liabilities, we may as well just kill everyone once they've reached retirement age or not even bother with a pension or welfare payments. The country would be plunged into anarchy pretty fast.
All up, I can see what you're saying... But it's a very selfish view.
-
"But I have also heard of people in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) dying in patient waiting rooms because they didn't have insurance or couldn't prove that they could pay for it?? What seems more fair here?"
US health care system is fucked up. It's not a free market system, it's a system where the AMA gets special government privileges to restrict the number of doctors so the artificial decrease in supply lets the existing doctors get paid ludicrous amounts for their services.
Cancer does not discriminate? Don't know where you heard that one. Cancer is an opportunistic disease, when you get cancer it is due to a failure of your immune system to kill it in its infancy - once you reach your 40s your body is killing off over 1 cancer a day on average. Now the mainstream understanding of medicine (I go to my GP he drugs me up and I'm fine) plays right into the hands of cancer, because many pharmaceuticals will impair the immune system, and doctors will do whatever they can to patch up symptoms (which may be early warning signs of cancer) without looking for underlying causes. That said, I'm happy to donate to cancer charities, however I'm not happy to donate to obesity charities. There are market solutions other than government to help the truly unfortunate, without helping all the lazy fucks at the same time. We can also limit our exposure to carcinogenic substances in our environment by making smart decisions about what we eat, where it came from, etc.
You say that a free market means people won't be able to pay? Go look at health care costs in Singapore, which is one of the least socialised and free-est systems in the world - way way way cheaper than the US. They have medical savings accounts instead, which means individuals get a certain amount to spend on health care per year, and its up to the individual how that money is spent, and it's up to the individual to get the coverage they need. I support a free market in health care because I want it to be as cheap and high quality as possible, with maximum competition ensuring this.
What's the difference between the government asking you for taxes and the mafia asking you for protection money? Both provide a shitty service, and neither is voluntary. Government is just an institutionalized version of the mafia.
Yes people have unforeseen health care costs, that's what INSURANCE is for. If you live a healthy lifestyle, insurance will be much cheaper - insurance costs are based on risks; risks which you can influence.
When I talked about liabilities that's how things are seen in a socialised system. In a free market, patients are seen as paying customers who business is required.
If you're wondering about non-government socialised solutions, look into fraternal societies (these used to be prevalent in the US). Once upon a time (before US government decided to run health care), there were fraternal societies for the homeless where they could receive health care in exchange for donating their time to the society. The doctors were working primarily on a pro bono basis (which is pretty much impossible with todays government regulations).
Remember, socialism works, just not with millions of strangers.
-
It sounds like you just don't like fat people.. I can relate to that.. But still I think what you're describing is in a utopian world. I completely agree with most of what you're saying, but I think to progress as a society, you need to take the good with the bad.
I like the idea of Singapore's system, but you're also talking about a country where the average per capita income is almost the highest in the world. Policies cannot be carbon copied and made to work everywhere.
"US health care system is fucked up. It's not a free market system, it's a system where the AMA gets special government privileges to restrict the number of doctors so the artificial decrease in supply lets the existing doctors get paid ludicrous amounts for their services. " I didn't actually know that. Sounds pretty messed up, but I don't know enough about this side to comment.
If you are making everyone move towards insurance, are you not going to have the same issues as you were stating before? (I'm genuinely asking the question) The free-rider principle applies more to insurance than anywhere else. How do you assess that someone is making the correct lifestyle choices? Also, if the supply doctors is being restricted, wouldn't the insurance premiums be extreme anyway to cover the already inflated cost? I've traveled to the US and when I bought my travel insurance, I had to pay almost double just for a week stopover.
I know you also say that cancer is opportunistic, but I'm afraid that I have to disagree. You couldn't say that things like cervical cancer, which is caused by certain cells being in the wrong place (very simplistic explanation) which eventually turn cancerous is due to someones lifestyle choices. I think it's a very simplistic view.
Unfortunately, if you were to somehow increase the supply of doctors, wouldn't they naturally emigrate to other countries where the wage is higher? How would you possibly retain them if the supply was increased? There is no longer any incentive for them as I know with most countries that demand mostly outweighs supply with doctors. I know that China's doctors were paid so little that they were pretty much forced to sign lucrative contracts with pharmaceutical companies, which in turn lowered the standard of care. I think that there was a massacre of doctors in a hospital not that long ago from memory because of this.
I agree there is definitely some things that need to be worked out, but I don't think that either you or I will see eye to eye completely on this one. I've enjoyed the banter though.
-
I don't have anything against fat people, I do have a problem subsidizing their poor life choices. People should be free to live how they choose, but they must face the consequences themselves.
Singapores high per capita income is partly due to their free market policies. I'm from Australia, which is also economically pretty free (3rd in world (last time I checked, NZ is pretty close) behind Hong Kong 1st and Singapore 2nd) and we have a pretty high per capita income too. Free market policies don't lead to instant wealth, but they do lead to prosperous growth, which when sustained for long enough, will make countries rich. Hong Kong used to be horrendously poor 60 years ago, but since they underwent industrialization coupled with a free-ish market they have gone from a country of shanties to skyscrapers (all in a country with 10x population density of India and no natural resources).
Insurance companies are the ones who bear the cost of the free rider, so they are the ones who must enforce their anti-free riding policies. By having someone have a medical checkup (a lot more objective than a lifestyle assessment) you can get a pretty good idea of their level of risk for certain health problems. If your health deteriorates, your premiums will go up, you get healthier they go down. Basically it comes down to risk assessment. Insurance companies tend to be pretty hell bent on stamping out fraud.
If the supply of doctors is restricted (as it is esp. in the US but also elsewhere), you need get rid of the restriction. Slapping universal healthcare policies on the system as is will only make those sky high prices turn into years long waiting lists. Either way, people will be without care when they need it.
Cancer is just an uncontrolled growth usually due to damaged DNA, and your immune system is equipped with the capabilities to kill small cancers. The two ways to get cancer basically are an impaired immune system or damage to so much DNA in so many cells that immune system has no chance (think high radiation/carcinogen exposure), most cases will be some combination of the two.
Supply and demand will reach an equilibrium. If all the doctors of the world tried to go to the rich countries, then doctors would be so prevalent there that wages would plummet for them, negating the point of moving to the rich country in the first place - conversely, with no doctors left in the poor countries, wages for doctors there would skyrocket. If wages dropped too low, people would stop becoming doctors, which would decrease supply eventually and raise wages again. There are many market forces competing against each other, as long as you don't intervene they will reach a steady state that optimizes the use of doctors. Also, there's a lot more to emigration than just picking your country of residence based on highest wage.
I've enjoyed the conversation too, most people just fling insults but you are raising good points and asking intelligent questions :)
-
You silly derp-faced socialists (I don't want to be too insulting, I used to think along these lines once). You guys REALLY need to understand some economics.
Sure, free healthcare sounds awesome. But actually consider the logistics of it for a few seconds and use some critical thinking please.
Before I begin THE US IS NOT A FREE MARKET IN HEALTHCARE. The US government already spends over 50% of money spent on medical care and the AMA artificially restricts the number of doctors in the US rising prices astronomically.
Issues:
1) Health care is not free. There is a limited number of medical supplies, and a limited number of doctors. You must pay a price for the use of these things (for labour/materials put into equipment and time put into educating doctors). In a free market, shortages lead to higher prices, which discourages needless use of the system and encourages new players to enter the market - eventually. In a socialised system, shortages are shortages. You get stuck on waiting lists for months, sometimes years on end. People die on these waiting lists.
2) Why the fuck should I have to subsidize your bad behaviour? Someone chooses to eat like shit, not exercise, etc. and their health care costs are going to skyrocket. I myself work out 4/5 days a week, eat very healthily, moderate my intake of drugs to keep myself healthy - my health care costs are virtually non existent, so I'm going to be paying a lot more into the system than I'll ever get out of it. Funnily enough I think it's much healthier for society if people keep their personal responsibility instead of handing it off to mommy government - that's how we get shit like the War on Drugs, and hey if the state is paying for your health care, they kinda do have some say in what you put into your body.
3) In a free market, equipment and doctors are assets (they make money). In a socialized system, they are a liability (you got a fixed budget, need to divide it up - most hospitals budgets in nationalised systems do not change dynamically according to demand, whereas in a free market more demand at a hospital means more income for the hospital so they can adjust accordingly).
4) To pay for the health care, you need to either a) forcefully take money from people (theft through taxes) or b) force doctors to perform procedures under threat of force. Neither is moral.
5) A 'right' to health care? A right is what society will let you do without repurcussion, basically the inverse of law. Objects and physical things are not rights - stop using buzzwords like you know what they mean. It is immoral to suggest that others must be forced to provide you with things. Force is never moral except in response to other force.
All you people saying humans need to work together as a species have no concept of how humans actually interact at a social level. Socialism isn't always a bad thing - it's a great system between people you PERSONALLY KNOW, like family and friends, because if someone tries to be a free rider you're going to find out quickly and be able to cut them off/sort them out. Our brain can only track about 150-250 people (Dunbar's number), so when you try to put millions of people into one social group it's a massive clusterfuck without the natural social check and balances. People WILL become free riders on the system - it's in their personal self interest.
To those saying "oh but the children", why should I have to look after someone's kids just because they can't look after their own? Why did they have the kid in the first place if they can't afford it? This is highly irresponsible behaviour, and it needs to be discouraged. If someone is stupid enough to have a child when they shouldn't, that's their problem alone, not society's.
For those of you on your moral high horse saying "oh we must care about strangers" get your hand off it right now. You don't give a fuck about strangers, not because you're some sick person, but because you are human. Humans can only comprehend about 150-250 individuals and empathise with them. Just think about how you live your daily lives. You care about yourself, your family and your friends WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more than any random stranger.
People really need to have a cup of wake the fuck up.
I don't want a long long debate I just want to try and prove a point with a theoretical scenario and I would like it if you gave me a response afterwards.
//Begin hypothetical scenario
We both live in the USA, you come from a rich affluent family. Me on the other hand, well my mother was a crack addict and I don't know my father. Deep down I try and do the right thing, but I was brought up around drugs and crime, for me it's the only way to survive. I now know that I should of paid attention in school but my mother never taught me that, by the time I found it out for myself it was too late. I now have a criminal record and no education, I live in a shitty flat with my girlfriend and our 5 year old son, he wasn't planned (My mother never taught me about safe sex and the schools are way too underfunded to give a crap about that sort of thing). We actually considered abortion but we either didn't have the money or found it morally wrong.
One day my child get's sick so I take him to the hospital, they say he's got leukemia and needs chemotherapy but I don't have the money so there is nothing they can do. I take him home and try and figure out what to do. I brought him into this world but there is nothing I can do for him, in these economic times it's hard to find a job even without a criminal record and with an education, for someone like me its impossible. I can see everything that went wrong in my life but by the time I saw it, it was too late. I'm not lazy, I was just unlucky, nobody taught me the things I needed to know to live a good life. My mother got pregnant with me whilst working the street, she had to do this to fund her crack habit which she obtained because she had to escape her past (she was beaten by her parents). She tried to seek psychological help but couldn't afford it, so she turned to crack.
one day I'm walking home from a successful drug deal, I now got 500 USD in my pocket but I need another 34500 to pay for my child's treatment, I just want to do what's right for him, he is my responsibility. It's late at night and as I am about to cross the road I see some young rich punk sitting in his BMW his parents probably bought him(let's pretend it's you in this scenario) at a redlight. I remember how my friend had told me how he used to steal cars and sell them to chop shops that dismantle them and sell the parts. I see an opportunity. Without thinking I walk towards you, take a quick look around and see the streets are empty, grab my 9mm and shoot you twice in the head, pull you out of the card and drive towards the chop shop. My son gets his treatment, you on the other hand are dead. Maybe I get away with it, maybe I don't. If you were to add up the costs of the police work, detective work, the trial and all those years I am going to spend in prison, ALL paid by the taxpayer, you'll find that it would of been a lot freaking cheaper just to pay my child's fucking treatment, more importantly, I wouldn't of been forced to kill you. I don't care that I'm in prison, my life was worthless anyway, I just wanted what was best for my child.
THAT is why you should look after other people's children. So I don't kill you.
//End hypothetical scenario
I used to have similar views as you, then I realized that it's in everyone's interest that everyone has their essential needs met (Living accommodation, food, water, leisure, etc.)
I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks healthcare shouldn't be free what they have to say about my scenario. It can be applied to virtually every aspect of society. I am not saying communism is the answer, I'm just trying to show that everyone on this planet is interlinked, if you deprive someone of their needs they're going to do whatever they can to survive, it's in their nature like you said yourself. Wouldn't a world with virtually no crime be worth higher taxes? A world where you don't have to lock your door at night, where your children can play in the street without the risk of being kidnapped? Or perhaps your answer is MORE freedom,everyone should carry guns at all times to protect themselves, criminals should be executed, etc. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
-
Your scenario is ridiculous. You know what I'd say? Take some fucking personal responsibility.
"We both live in the USA, you come from a rich affluent family. Me on the other hand, well my mother was a crack addict and I don't know my father."
That's your mother's fault, not the rest of society's. It is not in society's interest to raise the children of drug addicts for them.
"Deep down I try and do the right thing, but I was brought up around drugs and crime, for me it's the only way to survive."
Criminal attitudes are actually pretty linked to genetics, and not entirely down to environment. I can tell you confidently that even if I was raised around criminals I wouldn't think it would ever be OK. The only person ultimately responsible for your actions is you.
"I now know that I should of paid attention in school but my mother never taught me that, by the time I found it out for myself it was too late."
School performance is pretty much determined by IQ. IQ is highly heritable in the US (influenced by genetics more than environment), so if you are failing at school it's likely because you're just not that intelligent.
"I now have a criminal record and no education, I live in a shitty flat with my girlfriend and our 5 year old son, he wasn't planned (My mother never taught me about safe sex and the schools are way too underfunded to give a crap about that sort of thing). We actually considered abortion but we either didn't have the money or found it morally wrong. "
How fucking retarded do you have to be to not realize that having unprotected sex results in kids? Really? Pretty sure I had that figured out before I was 10 years old without it ever being taught to me. Also US public schools spend thousands per child per semester. They spend more per child than it costs to send children to private schools. They are by no means underfunded, maybe misfunded.
"One day my child get's sick so I take him to the hospital, they say he's got leukemia and needs chemotherapy but I don't have the money so there is nothing they can do."
In a free market it wouldn't cost insane amounts of money to get medical care because you'd have market competition bringing prices down. Also without drug patents (which I am also against) these drugs would be really, really cheap compared to what they are now. The problem of a service being too expensive (in this case health care) isn't solved by just forcing others to pay the high prices for you, lowering the cost of the service makes much more sense.
"I brought him into this world"
Then the child is YOUR responsibility.
Then you basically go onto say because some piece of shit thug might take money from a rich guy the rich guy should just be forced to pay anyway (through proxy as taxes). That's fucking retarded. Someone cares enough about their kid to murder someone but not enough to think twice before having the kid in the first place? These are the kind of degenerates we need to remove from society, not subsidize.
-
Like I said, I don't want to have a long argument, I just wanted to try and make a point which you clearly didn't understand.
The fact that it's the mothers fault is irrelevant, can't you see that? Do you think that people should have to suffer just because they were raised in bad circumstances?
I think you need to see first hand what it's like living under deprived circumstances to fully appreciate the problem. Are you perhaps the kind of person who sees footage of starving Africans and say "It's their own fault,they have too many kids and they're too lazy to work!"?
Look at socialist European countries and compare them to a country like the USA. You can make all the arguments you want but the facts are that socialist countries are better places to live.
Remove the degenerates? How? Now you're just making me annoyed. The solution is to get to the ROOT of the problem, look at what the USA is doing, throwing people in jail, to save money they make sure the jails are cheap and shitty, which means that when they come out they are going to be even more angry and fucked and are going to recommit. Look at the growth rate of the prisons (ALL PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS).
It IS in the interest of society to raise the children of drug addicts for them. If you make sure the child get's a good education and a good childhood he will have no reason to commit crimes when he is older. The solution is to break the cycle. If you don't break the cycle the kid is going to grow up fucked in the head with no hope for the future, create a shit load of more unwanted children and you'll have compound growth.Whilst middle class/upper class have an average of 2 children, criminals will have 5, you see the trend? You save ONE child, you prevent 25 more criminals over 2 generations. This is basic logic.
I'm hoping you're very young? I had similar views as you when I was about 14, then I understood how the world really works. It's easy to make the arguments you make when you're sitting behind a computer screen with a good sheltered upbringing. You remind me of the typical American Republican. No disrespect but come back when you see how the world really works, no amount of arguments is going to change your views, you need to experience the crap that exists out there first hand to understand.
-
The fact that it's the mothers fault is irrelevant, can't you see that? Do you think that people should have to suffer just because they were raised in bad circumstances?
No, it's not. If people take issue with the way they were raised, they can take it up with their parents.
Are you perhaps the kind of person who sees footage of starving Africans and say "It's their own fault,they have too many kids and they're too lazy to work!"?
They have oppressive governments that don't help the situation at all, but yes they have had too many kids. Their population has QUADRUPLED over the last century. It is not our job to subsidize their irresponsible ways, and any money that gets sent to Africa anyway just ends up in the hands of corrupt governments.
Remove the degenerates? How? Now you're just making me annoyed.
Get rid of them from your community, either through voluntary means or if they continue to stay and trouble the community, use some appropriate level of force. But if they aren't causing problems, they can be left alone. But then I probably wouldn't call them a degenerate - I'm talking about serial criminal offenders (real crimes not drug crimes), those who have shown clearly that they will not follow society's rules.
It IS in the interest of society to raise the children of drug addicts for them.
No, it isn't. These people have at least have half the genes of a drug addict. Chances are they aren't going to be that different to their parents, especially in regards to IQ, which is a very good predictor for social outcomes. I don't support prisons as a form of justice, I'm not really into making society pay to house pieces of shit at $40k+ a year. I support restitution based justice, where people are free once they fix whatever it is they fucked up (to the extent decided by a judge, obviously for murder you can't resurrect your victim).
I'm hoping you're very young? I had similar views as you when I was about 14, then I understood how the world really works. It's easy to make the arguments you make when you're sitting behind a computer screen with a good sheltered upbringing.
I'm in my early twenties, but I used to hold egalitarian views of the world (everybody's the same, it's just how you are raised) until I realised that that's complete bullshit. Your genetics play a significant role in determining who you are, and what options you have in life. It's impossible to teach some mental skills like critical thinking, you're born with it or you're not. The children of degenerates are likely to be degenerates themselves, especially if they are abused as a child (which, being the child of a degenerate, is fairly likely). You cannot really reverse this psychological damage against children.
It is an unfortunate reality that because of society looking after these children of degenerates, they are significantly outbreeding the smart, intelligent people of our society. The breeding pattern is dysgenic (as opposed to eugenic). How do you think this is going to affect civilization down the line when these people become a larger and larger proportion of society? In our current environment, the genes that are being selected for the most are those who belong to people who simply pop out the most kids, not the smartest, brightest, etc. which would be selected for if you actually had to make sure your kids survived yourself.
All throughout history 'good parenting' was a trait selected for through natural selection, but since Christianity has given the world humanism and we must 'save the children', good parenting has become optional.
-
No no no man you're wrong on so many levels. ::)
No one is born an addict, you might be born with a genetic predisposition, possessing certain traits that increase the chances of becoming an addict IF (big if) you are raised under bad circumstances, which is virtually a guarantee if your parents are drug addicts when raising you. This is why it's even more important to make sure the child doesn't have a bad life, for the greater good of society as a whole. If that means using tax money to make sure the child has a good home and get's a good education and receives any special help then so be it. If we can get to a point in society where everyone has good opportunities and everything they need for a good life, crime wouldn't exist to the same extent as today. Sure it would be hard and expensive to get to that point, but once we're there we can maintain it virtually forever. I'd like to see you look into the eyes of the children you claim are not your problem, imagine a young girl, who's maybe 6 years old and say "Your mother is a crack addict, you are not my responsibility, now piss of so I can spend the extra couple thousand bucks I make through the lowered taxes to take my children to Disney world, whilst you sit cold and hungry at home, alone, whilst your mother is selling herself on the street". That is basically your view, right?
You don't actually offer any solutions, the things you propose would just increase socioeconomic gaps, increase the amount of people being deprived, increase crime, it would create chaos. You can't just "get rid" of criminals, you can't kill them, you can't sweep them under the carpet, you have to deal with the problem, at the root. It's the only way.
-
TBH I don't care about the persons drug use specifically, I was just following your particular example, but I care about their criminality (in terms of violent crime especially). Genetics predict this rather well. It is better for society if these people do not spread their genes into future generations. I'm not for forced sterilization or anything crazy like that, but I'm a realist.
You can see massive differences in violent crime rates between different races to see how genetics can have significant effects on violent crime rates (these differences exist across country borders and cultures, they are pretty much the same worldwide).
If degenerates are made to realize that their kids will die if they don't raise them properly, this might make them behave a little less rashly when it comes to bringing a kid into this world. If you tell them that no matter what happens you've got the kids covered, they won't care so much. When you insulate people from risk you let them make stupid decisions (like having a kid when you can't afford it) and not suffer the consequences. People respond to incentives, and warping the incentives to not disincentivize bad parenting will lead to a steady increase in bad parenting.
The rich man at Disney world can behave like that if he wishes to, the money is his. Instead of throwing money at the crack addict mother, he could maybe tell them to go to rehab/mutual aid society, i.e. actually something constructive to fix the problem, instead of propagating the problem. It is not at all his fault that the crack addict makes a bad mother, it is the crack addict's fault.
Welfare actually increases socioeconomic gaps as it creates dependence. Government regulations (like those that control health care) are what help funnel money to the ultra rich - they're the ones with buddies in government to help them get unfair advantage over the competition with favourable regulation, no bid contracts, etc. You can kill criminals actually, it's pretty easy. Not saying you should always be killing them, but in some instances that certainly would be warranted (serial killers, whoever else society thinks is bad enough). You deal with criminals by making them actually pay for their crimes (i.e. make repayments to victims as restitution, which makes crime completely unprofitable - no longer would poverty be a motivating factor) or forcefully removing them from your community if they won't do that or are repeat serious offenders.
-
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Gerald Ford
"Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people." - Grover Cleveland
These are two of my favorite quotes that I feel really apply to the governmental changes that are happening today.
Government run healthcare is a double edged sword. It will help very poor people and those with pre-existing conditions get healthcare but at the same time it will degrade the quality of care for those that currently have insurance. Is this fair? I really have trouble answering this definitively because I don't want people to suffer but I especially don't want those that EARNED their way to be penalized by those who didn't. With how interconnected society is now this sense that we have a duty to help everyone is becoming greater and greater every day. If you look back in time before the human brain came up with all the technology we have now you'd find that the world was a very unforgiving place to live in. If you didn't get your food and supplies you died which is a textbook example of survival of the fittest. It allows a population to grow/shrink or remain constant while making sure that the population isn't full of sick unhealthy people. This might sound sick but people have to die its the way the world works, if really sick people died then the massive financial burden they put on the system could be used to help a dozen somewhat sick but curable people. Those that are more fit and healthy will survive while those that are not will die. Medical technology violates the rules of nature and in the last 100 or so years that has led to a serious problem. There are more children surviving childbirth, people are living FAR longer, and people with nasty health problems are living longer or simply staying alive. If you want to fix this I'd start by recommending everyone smoke 2 packs a day! Smoking doesn't cost the system money it saves money because smokers die 10+ years earlier then their non smoking counterpart. At least you get to smoke live life to the fullest and die rather than get old and hustle drugs at the retirement home.....ha ha I'm just trying to envision the police trying to arrest an 80 year old man in a wheel chair for selling dime bags that would be a sight to behold.
Ultimately economics dictates when its time to pull the plug on someone but the human perception of right/wrong stops this from happening, you want to keep your loved ones alive and if you've got insurance screw it do everything to keep them alive and bill the system for a ton of money someone else will pay for it. The problem is everyone is starting to think like that and eventually the system will implode. If insurance said we won't cover it would you really sell your house to pay for an extra couple weeks with a terminally ill person? I guess that depends just how rational you are but me I'd sit down with them enjoy the last few days and let nature do its course. I've seen firsthand people that had stage 4 cancer and did everything they could to stay alive vomiting all the time from chemo getting brain surgery I mean they probably blew 1+ million dollars on their medical care and for what? They knew they were going to die yet wasted money, doctors time, surgeons time, and lots of other stuff. That 1 million dollars could have probably covered the basic medical expenses for thousands of children in developing countries. I also think that terminally ill people should be able to OPT for a tasty drug cocktail that will put them out in a blaze of glory but apparently that's illegal so we should just give them hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in treatment to extend their life for a few weeks or months.....which option cost's less money and causes less pain anyone want to guess? At least I know that if somebody got shot with an epic dose of morphine they died in a happy place rather than with their body systematically shutting down piece by piece.
The entire insurance system needs a complete overhaul but I think that it needs to cover a lot less than what they do now. People don't understand economics look at Lasik eye surgery it was REALLY expensive to begin with and insurance would not cover it so they had to lower the price to a level at which a consumer could afford it otherwise they would have gone out of business. You don't need insurance to cover a doctors visit because if no one gets that covered then the doctors will HAVE to reduce the price to something affordable. Insurance should be there just in case you need a major surgery, get in a accident, or come down with a debilitating or terminal health problem.
Just keep in mind that with all these new social programs we as a society will slowly start to morph into a system of dependence on government rather than independence which will end very badly that I can guarantee.
If the government was actually smart......
They would take that massive auto industry bailout pull it out of their asses and put it toward genetic engineering. Imagine if we didn't need the vast majority of our healthcare system because the diseases found in society would be engineered out of our future generations. Then come the religious arguments but I say to them its time to update your views its not the dark ages anymore. Sure maybe we won't be able to create life from scratch maybe that's god's little pinch of magic but changing a microscopic chunk of DNA can mean the cure for diabetes and a plethora of other illnesses.
Instead
They just target whatever they feel the cause is - Look at NYC they figured out what was causing their obesity soft drinks over 16 ounces! The logical solution was to ban anything larger....I'm sure when the ban yields no change Bloomberg will go after the next culprit candy bar's longer than 2 inches.
-
During the build up to the American election I saw a news report where some Republican voters were being asked what they thought about Obama's healthcare plans. One guy was saying "Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to support someone who hasn't properly planned for their future? I don't want a healthcare system, this is communism!". Which got old Zen thinking again...
Personally, I'm happy to pay whatever tax is needed to provide a healthcare system that cares for anyone. No matter the cost or how rich the patient is, I believe healthcare is an essential basic human right. And to me it makes sense, that if we all chip in a small amount each, then the cost is spread out and minimized for all of us. Even if I went my whole life without using the NHS, I'd still be happy I payed the tax £'s.
I'd like to hear your ideas (I'm always open to changing my mind), especially from any American cousins...
Would you also be happy to force others to pay against their will and lock them in a cage and even take their lives if they refuse to comply? How does that jive with your idea the people have a "right" to healthcare?
-
During the build up to the American election I saw a news report where some Republican voters were being asked what they thought about Obama's healthcare plans. One guy was saying "Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to support someone who hasn't properly planned for their future? I don't want a healthcare system, this is communism!". Which got old Zen thinking again...
Personally, I'm happy to pay whatever tax is needed to provide a healthcare system that cares for anyone. No matter the cost or how rich the patient is, I believe healthcare is an essential basic human right. And to me it makes sense, that if we all chip in a small amount each, then the cost is spread out and minimized for all of us. Even if I went my whole life without using the NHS, I'd still be happy I payed the tax £'s.
I'd like to hear your ideas (I'm always open to changing my mind), especially from any American cousins...
Would you also be happy to force others to pay against their will and lock them in a cage and even take their lives if they refuse to comply? How does that jive with your idea the people have a "right" to healthcare?
No, of course not. ::) My preferred option is to reach a democratic solution.
However, in the UK people are sent to prison for not paying their taxes, but we no longer have capital punishment for any crimes (both points I agree on).
-
During the build up to the American election I saw a news report where some Republican voters were being asked what they thought about Obama's healthcare plans. One guy was saying "Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to support someone who hasn't properly planned for their future? I don't want a healthcare system, this is communism!". Which got old Zen thinking again...
Personally, I'm happy to pay whatever tax is needed to provide a healthcare system that cares for anyone. No matter the cost or how rich the patient is, I believe healthcare is an essential basic human right. And to me it makes sense, that if we all chip in a small amount each, then the cost is spread out and minimized for all of us. Even if I went my whole life without using the NHS, I'd still be happy I payed the tax £'s.
I'd like to hear your ideas (I'm always open to changing my mind), especially from any American cousins...
Would you also be happy to force others to pay against their will and lock them in a cage and even take their lives if they refuse to comply? How does that jive with your idea the people have a "right" to healthcare?
No, of course not. ::) My preferred option is to reach a democratic solution.
However, in the UK people are sent to prison for not paying their taxes, but we no longer have capital punishment for any crimes (both points I agree on).
What exactly do you think democracy is? It is the will of the majority being forced on the minority. The smallest minority, of course, is the individual. Just because you vote for someone to do your dirty work for you, doesn't make you any less culpable.
Suppose someone is not willing to go to prison peacefully? Is lethal force allowed?
-
I just want to clarify a comment I said above. I don't believe people living on the poverty line who cannot afford to pay their taxes should go to prison (ideally no-one should go to prison there are better alternatives in almost all situations, apart from maybe those who pose a violent threat to society). There has been a lot of news recently (UK) of rich individuals and super rich international companies avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. It is these people who are morally vacuous, that I agree should go to prison for tax avoidance (which isn't a crime in the UK ::) ).
-
People who cannot afford to go to the doctor should just stop getting sick. Only the rich should get sick!
-
What we need isn't to pick which option half of the people will hate the least, we need to take a serious look at how we as a society are moving forward.
Imagine if everyone felt such a part of a giant fucking family that, without taxes, people just up and donated whatever they felt they could without sacrificing anything? Ideally, rich people would be paying a lot more than they are now, but because they would want to, not because they were forced to. Those riding the poverty line could cut back on donations until they had their feet.
As it is, we're so individually focused that any possibility of that is pretty remote, so a bunch of people like to say it's not possible. Not true! Just means it'll take a long time to get there, possibly longer than your lifetime, and unfortunately that's enough for a lot of people to not give a shit. "No results till my grandkids have kids? Why should I work extra hard for them to have that when I get none of it, huh?!"
Right now I'm on the edge of living month to month, and I could be up some $800 in the past few months except I keep giving little bits out here and there to help my friends because I can juuust afford to. When I'm ready to move up, I'll just start saving more. Then when I'm satisfied, I'll start donating again. So far I've helped three people out of some kind of nasty spot or another while I've watched people around me not do the same for others.
The problem isn't how the money is moved around. It's how we look at each other and our own lives. Perspective precedes both want and action.
Yeah man that's the attitude! As soon as I have enough money to maintain a comfortable lifestyle for the foreseeable future I plan on spending my time and money helping other members of my species. I don't understand how the rich and famous can waste such vasts sums of money on the most pointless and trivial of things. I understand it if people buy expensive things that actually have a purpose, but then there's like the Paris Hilton types that spend like thousands of dollars for a designer bag to carry their stupid dogs around. It's their right to do that if they want, its their money, but I don't understand how they think. I've lived that lifestyle, not megarich but considerably above average and I don't get it. It's just meaningless and materialistic, I know it's cliché but money really doesn't equate to happiness. As long as you have enough to live comfortably and not have to worry, that's all you need. The things that make me happy has nothing to do with money, I used to obsess about becoming rich and buying expensive things, that was a while ago. People seeking riches are trying to compensate for something, they realize it eventually.
If you look at the world in terms of resources though, when a rich person uses 5x the electricity of a normal household, he is using valuable oil, a limited resource, but it's acceptable because he buys it with money? The monetary system we use really is quite sickening, if there's money to be made, it doesn't matter what the environmental impacts are or who get's hurt indirectly, where there's money there's a way. Now I'm basically digressing into The Zeitgeist Movement, do you know it? If not you should really check it out, lemme know what you think!
If only more people thought like you the world would be a much better place. Hopefully people like bincofone will wake up one day. Maybe one day he loses everything and he understands that shit can happen anyone, once it does it's nice to have a system to lean on.
-
I just want to clarify a comment I said above. I don't believe people living on the poverty line who cannot afford to pay their taxes should go to prison (ideally no-one should go to prison there are better alternatives in almost all situations, apart from maybe those who pose a violent threat to society). There has been a lot of news recently (UK) of rich individuals and super rich international companies avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. It is these people who are morally vacuous, that I agree should go to prison for tax avoidance (which isn't a crime in the UK ::) ).
Who determines what is "morally vacuous"? Who determines what "fair share" is? Is it OK to steal from someone because they have more money than you?
I think what most people need to come to terms with is practically every law, every tax, every regulation, is ultimately the barrel of a gun. One must be able, or should be able, to justify an action that can be logically derived from the fundamental principle of "self-ownership". If one finds himself in conflict with one of the three fundamental laws of rational thought viz: Law of Identity, Law of non-contradiction, Law of the Excluded Middle, then one needs to reexamine their position, or accept it as being "immoral".
This is the dilemma of those who seek "positive rights" such as healthcare. It requires a positive obligation from others which must be enforced through the initiation of violence, which violates a person or person's "negative rights". All positive rights are contradictory to negative rights of individuals.
-
If you look at the world in terms of resources though, when a rich person uses 5x the electricity of a normal household, he is using valuable oil, a limited resource, but it's acceptable because he buys it with money? The monetary system we use really is quite sickening, if there's money to be made, it doesn't matter what the environmental impacts are or who get's hurt indirectly, where there's money there's a way. Now I'm basically digressing into The Zeitgeist Movement, do you know it? If not you should really check it out, lemme know what you think!
I am familiar with the Zeitgeist movement and "post-scarcity". I think it is a technological impossibility.
If you want to talk about voluntary mutual aid societies, I'd be happy to discuss the possibilities.
-
If you look at the world in terms of resources though, when a rich person uses 5x the electricity of a normal household, he is using valuable oil, a limited resource, but it's acceptable because he buys it with money? The monetary system we use really is quite sickening, if there's money to be made, it doesn't matter what the environmental impacts are or who get's hurt indirectly, where there's money there's a way. Now I'm basically digressing into The Zeitgeist Movement, do you know it? If not you should really check it out, lemme know what you think!
Someone doesn't understand economics.
When someone's using electricity they're probably not using up oil for a start. What you need to realize is EVERYTHING IS A LIMITED RESOURCE, not just oil. Every time you breathe you suck up some of the finite supply of oxygen in the air. We can either divide up these resources among everyone, like with communism, which leads to mass starvation, or we can let people acquire these resource privately. In the soviet union where only 10% of farm land was privately owned, that 10% produced over half of the food for the soviet union. We need privatized wealth so people have an incentive to create more wealth.
Everytime you engage in a voluntary transaction, both parties are richer. Let's say you bought a sandwich off me for $3. To me $3 is worth more than the sandwich, to you the sandwich is worth more than $3 (if one of those wasn't the case the transaction would never have taken place). When you start forcing payments to be involuntary (like through taxes) then you stop getting a situation where all parties benefit and people get screwed over. This doesn't mean you have to be selfish either, you could donate $10 to a charity and the satisfaction from donating is worth more to you than the $10. Whether or not you think these transactions are fair is based on your value judgements (how much do you value the object and the money). These values are subjective, you cannot make these judgements for someone else and no one else can make them for you.
Zeitgeist movement is completely retarded. It's just communism with a computer running things, with all of the inherent flaws of communism (like having near zero incentive to work) still in place. You cannot centrally plan an economy - you can't accurately predict people economic activity and plan ahead for that, no matter how much processing power you have available to compute these things with. The Soviet Union used to do it by using economic figures from the US, the only problem with that is the USSR and the US are two completely different places with different people, so their calculations were way off and lead to massive shortages/oversupplies of particular goods. Maybe you could calculate better if you were using true AI that could empathize with humans, but then you'd have so little control over the computer that it could just do what the fuck it wants.
Predicting people's economic activity isn't always impossible, but as I said the only way you can do that is if you can empathize with them. Humans only have to capability to empathize with about 150-250 people max, so that it about the size of a group that you can plan in a social manner. To be able to predict someones value judgements you have to know them personally pretty damn well.
If only more people thought like you the world would be a much better place. Hopefully people like bincofone will wake up one day. Maybe one day he loses everything and he understands that shit can happen anyone, once it does it's nice to have a system to lean on.
Maybe when we have brains the size of zeppelins and can empathize effectively with millions of others. Until evolution takes us down that path (which it wouldn't - brain mass/power isn't cheap!) it's a pipe dream to suggest that we will be one big happy family.
You humanists are a joke. Every time you buy yourself a candy bar or a coffee, basically anything non essential, that's a big fuck you to the face of humanism. Through your own actions you have demonstrated that you value yourself above strangers that the money could have been spent on. Every time you buy a gift or do something nice for your friends/family, you do the same thing. You demonstrate through your actions that you value friends/family above strangers. Just look at your own lives to see if humanism really is a feasible idea. Do people behave for the good of all humanity, or do they behave for the good of themselves and their social group?
As for me, I have savings and insurance should things go wrong. I do this crazy thing called planning ahead for the future, maybe you should try it. I take personal responsibility for my future, I'm not some lazy piece of crap who wants to palm off this responsibility to the rest of the world. Even then, I have these crazy things called family and friends who would voluntarily help me out of a tight situation if I got into it (just as I would help them), instead of forcing everyone else at the barrel of a gun (all laws, including taxation, are backed up by the threat of violent force) to help me.
TL;DR learn some economics and how humans interact socially before spouting humanist garbage
And another question to those who support socialised health care, why dont you want to socialise food? Food is FAR more important to your survival than any medical care.
-
Eat more Raw Cacao :)
-
I'd agree that it's human nature for people to act primarily in their own self-interest, and the interest of those nearest and dearest to them. But it can also be in ones own interest to be part of a healthy and functioning society.
On a selfish level I know that if I where to get very ill, I'd have access to a healthcare system that wouldn't cost me the earth. I'm using the fact that others are paying into the system to lower the potential cost for me. In fact, I'm so happy at the potential to offset the cost onto others, that I'm willing to pay my part even if I never use the NHS and see a return. This benefit is the same one that makes people happy to take out insurance policies and created the multimillion dollar insurance industry. I regard the taxes I pay into the NHS as a type of insurance; - a National Insurance* for all intents and purposes. The majority pay a little proportion regularly so that the minority can receive a larger proportion if the worst does happen (of course I've over simplified things there, but in essence it remains true).
This is a good example of how when people act primarily in their own self-interest, but also with society as their secondary interest, this benefits society as a whole. The same could be said for capitalism, it works best when peoples' main motivations are themselves, but they work within a framework conducive to societies betterment as a whole. :)
* I'm aware the term NI has become a misnomer regarding the division of income tax in the UK
-
It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone could think an NHS is a bad thing.
-
You humanists are a joke. Every time you buy yourself a candy bar or a coffee, basically anything non essential, that's a big fuck you to the face of humanism.
Free market capitalists are a bigger joke. Do you remember the GFC? Are you familiar with what's happening in Greece and Spain at the moment? Sub-prime? Bueller?
Me personally? This Snickers bar I just ate, vs the billions of dollars defrauded by the fucking banks? There's the greed of me eating this chocolate, and there's GREED.
This world isn't a bottomless pit for consumption - consumers and capitalists - to shit in. Laissez-faire capitalism is utter rubbish. Look at Thatcher's England, look at New Zealand - anywhere it's been attempted to be implemented leads to disaster. Creates an underclass, unequity, health and social problems, disunity, a whole raft of really rather shitty societal problems.
I can't also believe that you're essentially arguing against empathy by saying that there is a quota for how many people you can feel empathy for, so why bother.
And then in one sentence you say that everyone should support themselves and plan for the future, but then you say if you got in over your head (but hang on, you planned!) that your friends and family would help out. Why should they? You clearly didn't plan adequately, or perhaps you only believe in a level of planning YOU are capable of? What about those people that aren't as good a planner as you? What if something unforseen happens and it's beyond the help of you and your immediate family? Happy to die if that medical treatment costs more than you and the 5 people who don't think you're an asshole know can muster?
-
People who think we have a free market are a joke. I remember the GFC. I also remember how the Fed (central banks are very much anti-free market) expanded credit and kept interest rates near 0% to spur on the housing boom. I remember how US government made it illegal to refuse loans, forcing banks to create mortgages that they knew would fail. Housing boom and bust was not caused by the free market. Really, the housing boom was created to buy politicians more time so the US wouldn't have to feel the pain of the dot com bust, but now the problem is bigger. All the stimulus provided to the economy from the Fed and the government is like monetary heroin - makes you feel good short term, until you either go through withdrawals once the stimulus is taken away (recession/depression because the boom has gone bust) or never take it away and end up ODing (hyperinflation). Either way you get some inflation, and inflation is a wealth transfer from everyone holding the currency to the people who get the freshly made currency first (banks).
Banks are special government protected entities. If you or I tried to do what banks do, we'd be committing fraud.
Look up Peter Schiff, he and many other free market economists saw the collapse way before it actually happened, because they could see how government manipulation of the market was going to lead to disaster.
Creates an underclass, unequity, health and social problems, disunity, a whole raft of really rather shitty societal problems.
I'd prefer inequity to everyone being in poverty. What "health and social problems" do voluntary transactions between individuals cause? Remember, free markets haven't been used anywhere in the world in the past century, we can only compare two non-free markets and say which is free-er. Free markets mean totally voluntary transactions, how are voluntary transactions damaging to society?
The free-est market in the world is Hong Kong and in the past 60 years since industrialization they have gone from living in shanties to living in skyscrapers, in a country with 10x population density of India and no natural resources. They have one of the best economic growth rates in the world. Guess it's doing shit for them huh
I can't also believe that you're essentially arguing against empathy by saying that there is a quota for how many people you can feel empathy for, so why bother.
No, I'm saying drop the bullshit, fake empathy that people just espouse to make themselves feel better, but make no action on whatsoever. Empathise with people you can actually socially interact with - previous social interaction is a prerequisite to be able to empathise with someone - you cannot empathise with a stranger.
but then you say if you got in over your head (but hang on, you planned!)
I can't really insure against my insurers going out of business, or some other major disasters.
-
It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone could think an NHS is a bad thing.
Waiting lists kill people. If you've got 12 month waiting lists and only 3 months till you're gonna die unless you have surgery, you're fucked. The lack of paying for the service leads to overuse of the service which only increases waiting times further.
In Canada for example, you can get an MRI for a dog on the same day, but if you're a human you've gotta wait about a month. I'd rather human health care be of a bit higher quality, or at least the same as vetenary care (not that I don't care about animals level of care!).
Private systems (not bogged down by shit tons of regulations like in the US) ensure on demand health care is available when you need it (this is VERY important to providing effective medical care, letting problems get worse is not in the patients interest), and providers compete with each other to lower the cost. In the US if you look at plastic surgery and laser eye surgery, which have little government influence, costs have been going down and down, as opposed to regulated/socialized areas of healthcare (through medicare/medicaid) where costs go up and up.
-
words...
If you have 3 months to live, the NHS doesn't put you on a 12 month waiting list.
My father has fronto-temporal dementia and requires 24 hour care. I would not want to be without the NHS.
-
If you have 3 months to live, the NHS doesn't put you on a 12 month waiting list.
Yeah, they do. You don't get to jump the queue just because you're sick (everyone on the list is sick to some degree). This is what sucks when you ration out things through socialist means, when there isn't enough to go around some people have to miss out. I'd rather no one missed out.
-
Bincofone, humanist is not a useful synonym for socialist. It's an alternative term for atheist.
I'd like to offer for your consideration my invention: the LIBERTARIAN LAMPPOST. This consists of a normal streetlight, but with the addition of a coin operated switch. You put in your 5 /10 cents or pence(the market will decide the rate, if it's too dear a competitor will erect a cheaper lamppost nearby ) and it gives you enough light to walk to the next lamppost. After all why should you pay for someone else's light? If they haven't planned ahead and brought enough change that's their problem
-
I'm an athiest, and certainly not a humanist.
Business owners and home owners would be willing to pay for these lights for you because they want people to access their stores/homes safely. Humans are inherently social creatures, you don't need to force them to be social. If you don't interact with others then you can never be very wealthy at all!
You don't need a state to have community-owned goods and services.
-
I think you are still confusing humanism with socialism. You could be a libertarian humanist if you wanted; there is no link between humanism and socialism. Have a look at the Wikipedia page on "humanism" it's got little to do with socialism.
-
Humanism is the ideology which drives people towards collectivist socialism, thinking we are all connected and should all work as one etc. Socialism works when you truly are connected to the others, not with strangers - that's where capitalism works best - it allows two individuals who otherwise don't like each other (or don't trust each other) to mutually benefit off each others activities.
Humans never evolved to operate as one large species-sized cooperative unit. We evolved to work in tribes (no more than a few hundred people), the only way populations got bigger is through agriculture and market activity, and since then our brains have not developed the ability to form bigger social groups - bigger brains mean a bigger biological cost (in terms of resources used).
-
Certain people - those that speak against the coming fascism and new-age Aushwitz - are labeled as mean-spirited, intolerant and of course, bigoted because of the high percentage of non-whites receiving social services. Never-mind that healthcare costs could be lowered dramatically if the certain politicians would get out of the way. That's ANOTHER issue. Let's look at the Aushwitz issue. Under ObamaCare, there will CERTAINLY be waiting lists for important operations and life-saving treatments that require specialists. You can't add 20,000,000 people and expect to get heart-bypass surgery as before. There will be DEATH PANELS, that is, faceless beurocrats who will decide who gets off the waiting list with a new heart, cancer surgery, etc., and who goes onto "End-of-Life" treatment. Got bowel-cancer? Take 2 aspirin. :(
Now, if you've been paying attention to internet politics, you're aware that Google is in a 69 with the WhiteHouse (WH). Google execs fly their G5's into super-restricted Dept of Defence airfields which were heretofore off limits to civilians. What do you think the WH wants from Google? Only all your emails that can be swept by spider programs looking anything and everything, but for this post example: Does the user visit only Conservative websites? Does he donate to Republicans? Guess what, you go to the bottom of the list.
However, if you voted 200 times in the election for the Dems, helped stuff ballot boxes by loading up the roles with dead-people's names that could be voted, called for the killing of white babies, and hate all capitalists, you'll get a private room. In other words, the PURGE that the communists always bring when they take over will be done through ObamaCare. Do you really think they'll let Rush Limbaugh come out of the hospital recovered?
Our President interviewed saying he liked Mao Tse Tung when in college. He did not add the expected disclaimer that "I was young and foolish." No, he has appointed czars who also think Mao - who killed millions of Chinese - is cool.
-
Well someone's been reading too much infowars....You know when this section of the forum was launched I really thought it would become the focus of intelligent debate. But every thread gets shouted down by rabid free market extremists who think they are the only ones who understand economics. It's such a closed community that they act as if their ideas are mainstream and anyone who disagrees must be some kind of communist. Then there's the full on crazies like this fellow
It's a shame because I suspect there's plenty of people like me who aren't committed to one particular ideology, but are afraid to post because of the disparaging abuse they'll get from the libertarians. "WHAT? You actually believe the government might have a useful role to play in ameliorating the worst excesses of monopoly capitalism? YOU POOR DUMB BENIGHTED ANIMAL YOU CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!"
-
Well someone's been reading too much infowars....You know when this section of the forum was launched I really thought it would become the focus of intelligent debate. But every thread gets shouted down by rabid free market extremists who think they are the only ones who understand economics. It's such a closed community that they act as if their ideas are mainstream and anyone who disagrees must be some kind of communist. Then there's the full on crazies like this fellow
It's a shame because I suspect there's plenty of people like me who aren't committed to one particular ideology, but are afraid to post because of the disparaging abuse they'll get from the libertarians. "WHAT? You actually believe the government might have a useful role to play in ameliorating the worst excesses of monopoly capitalism? YOU POOR DUMB BENIGHTED ANIMAL YOU CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!"
You don't understand economics though. That's why we keep saying it ::)
Yes Infowars talked about "death-panels" and such. They like to sensationalize stories as much as the other media, but they are correct sometimes; just because Alex Jones likes to jump around like a monkey on meth doesn't mean he's always wrong. When you have limited care and too many people wanting it, people will have to miss out. The utilitarian view is that you give what care there is to those who need it most, and somebody's got to make that decision.
Saying something is wrong because someone in particular said it is called argumentum ad hominem. Avoid it like the plague. Attack the argument, not the messenger.
Monopolies are incredibly non-competitive entities. Competition is what keeps them at bay. If you look at actual free-ish markets in the world like in Hong Kong giant corporations are pretty much non-existent - free markets heavily favour small dynamic business over big static business - markets are constantly changing places.
Explain to me how a monopoly forms through entirely voluntary transactions. I can point to many instances of monopolies where said monopoly has a whole bunch of special legal privileges, without said legal privileges they are very rare indeed (NYSE was somewhat of a natural monopoly on its own (there were no competitors) but it is now most definitely supported by government).
When you've grown the intellectual honesty to actually study and understand capitalism instead of slinging around insults at it and it's adherents, then you might be treated like an adult.
-
Well said, Binco. That's the Left's standard reaction, and you pinned it well.
-
Well said, Binco. That's the Left's standard reaction, and you pinned it well. Another HealthCare issue swept under the rug: We were given a legacy called "Pursuit of Happiness." I would think getting a life-saving medical procedure would fall under that rubric, which those early geniuses - the Founding Fathers - told us came from G-d, but Obama replaces G-d as University dogma replaces common sense.
-
I'm not quite sure my post could be described as an argument ad hominem, more just old fashioned abuse, like
You silly derp-faced socialists (I don't want to be too insulting, I used to think along these lines once). You guys REALLY need to understand some economics.
I wasn't saying that Carl Jungs ideas can be dismissed because they sound like they come from Infowars. I'm saying they can be dismissed because they are CLEARLY COMPLETELY INSANE complete with comparisons to the Nazis.
If we are playing "spot the logical fallacy" you seem to be defending the idea that Obamas healthcare plans are a thinly veiled attempt to kill off white republican voters by denying them medical treatment.
And in free market hospitals there also will be " death panels" that decide who receives medical care or not. They will just base their decision on the ability of the patient to pay rather than the urgency of his condition.
-
I'm not quite sure my post could be described as an argument ad hominem, more just old fashioned abuse, like... [my post]
I provided a very detailed argument after that. I was not using insults as a substitute for a logical argument.
And in free market hospitals there also will be " death panels" that decide who receives medical care or not. They will just base their decision on the ability of the patient to pay rather than the urgency of his condition.
Have you ever met a surgeon or paramedic in real life? Have you ever seen how they react when someone gets hurt? It is the complete opposite to your fantasy of everyone acting selfishly.
Many doctors are willing to work pro bono, but they can't at the moment because the regulatory costs mean there is a huge minimum cost for the operation even if the doctor isn't getting paid. Liability insurance is the biggest cost (due to government influence). The huge liability risks lead to overuse (doctors order needless things to cover their arses) which lead to even more inflated prices.
Before government got involved in health care there were fraternal societies where even the homeless could get access to health care. If the free market can health care for the homeless, who can't it provide it for? Note that this health care was not "free" , you had to contribute to the society in what ways you could (volunteering time, teaching skills you have to others, etc.).
If we are playing "spot the logical fallacy" you seem to be defending the idea that Obamas healthcare plans are a thinly veiled attempt to kill off white republican voters by denying them medical treatment.
That is the end result of it, yes. Rationing will lead to denial of care to older individuals, which tend to be whiter than the rest of the population, and tend to be republican too. It's a logical conclusion. I don't necesarily care if that's the motive behind it or not, its makes no bearing on the reality of the situation.
-
Many Jews in 1930s considered others "crazy" to fear Hitler. They couldn't see where Reverand Wright's comin from. Conservatives are not allowed (in practical terms) to speak at most universities today without needing Presidential-level security, they don't get hired in schools or civil service. One has to think twice before bringing a book by Beck or Limbaugh into the office for a lunchtime read, for example. Jews in 1930's newspapers and radio were ridiculed just as Sarah Palin was ridiculed here now. Same Nazi mentality that would refuse to acknowledge Einstein ("Jewish physics" they called it) refuses to debate the Sarah Palins of this world, choosing instead to dismiss all who would disagree with "The Fuhrer" as being morally inferior (you know those racist Republicans). Same today with Obama, who OPENLY admits his admiration of Mao Tse Dung - who also killed millions of Chinese. This is history repeating itself. The same people who wail how confused the Caribou will get if we drill in Alaska will burn children alive in Waco.
-
It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone could think an NHS is a bad thing.
Waiting lists kill people. If you've got 12 month waiting lists and only 3 months till you're gonna die unless you have surgery, you're fucked. The lack of paying for the service leads to overuse of the service which only increases waiting times further.
In Canada for example, you can get an MRI for a dog on the same day, but if you're a human you've gotta wait about a month. I'd rather human health care be of a bit higher quality, or at least the same as vetenary care (not that I don't care about animals level of care!).
Private systems (not bogged down by shit tons of regulations like in the US) ensure on demand health care is available when you need it (this is VERY important to providing effective medical care, letting problems get worse is not in the patients interest), and providers compete with each other to lower the cost. In the US if you look at plastic surgery and laser eye surgery, which have little government influence, costs have been going down and down, as opposed to regulated/socialized areas of healthcare (through medicare/medicaid) where costs go up and up.
What have you been smoking my man? You have apparently not been to a hospital in a while. Good genes and good behavior or it just good luck? The system in the US is flat out the worst in the world when it comes to bang for a buck, and oddly the only island that seems to get reasonably good marks is the VA. Meanwhile the head of United Health Care makes like a zillion dollars a minute. And sadly that money isn't honestly wrangled like in some kind of Ayn Rand opium dream. Comes from gaming the system.
Number one cause of bankruptcy here--getting sick. Oh they deserved it, I see.
I say forget the fancy philosophy and just look at the numbers across several countries including Canada in terms of life expectancy/quality of life/percentage of GDP spent on health care and even a rocket scientist comes to the conclusion that treating health care as a standard economic commodity doesn't work very efficiently, and promotes charlatinism.
-
Many doctors are willing to work pro bono, but they can't at the moment because the regulatory costs mean there is a huge minimum cost for the operation even if the doctor isn't getting paid. Liability insurance is the biggest cost (due to government influence). The huge liability risks lead to overuse (doctors order needless things to cover their arses) which lead to even more inflated prices.
Seriously. Haven't you just spent several pages explaining how humans haven't evolved to be altruistic towards anyone but kin or close acquaintances? And that anyone who thinks otherwise is in cloud cuckoo land? Now you are saying there's no need to worry about people not being able to pay for treatment because doctors will work for free, as long as the pesky government don't interfere.
I readily believe that most medical professionals would do this but isn't the whole basis of a free market system that everyone is expected to behave out of self interest?
I don't know what right wing propaganda you've been reading about the NHS in UK but the rationing of care you describe doesn't happen. No one in this country dies because of lack of access to the latest medical care. Unlike the US where poor people still die of treatable illnesses.
However in the UK cancer drug treatments that only have a 5% chance of success are unlikely to be funded ( I'm not talking about individual cases here; drugs are approved across the board or not at all). We don't waste the taxpayers money on unproven drugs. Still we do have private hospitals as well and people can always use insurance to pay for unorthodox remedies.
Have you considered how a free market will affect the development of new drugs? At the moment new drugs are protected by patent law so that the drug companies can recoup the cost of development. Do you propose doing away with the patent protection so that competition can take place? But then what incentive will companies have to develop new drugs? Or will we do away with the expensive drug trial process and just allow companies to market any drug and caveat emptor? I really don't think it's as simple as you imagine.
-
What have you been smoking my man?
Weed.
You have apparently not been to a hospital in a while. Good genes and good behavior or it just good luck? The system in the US is flat out the worst in the world when it comes to bang for a buck, and oddly the only island that seems to get reasonably good marks is the VA. Meanwhile the head of United Health Care makes like a zillion dollars a minute. And sadly that money isn't honestly wrangled like in some kind of Ayn Rand opium dream. Comes from gaming the system.
Health care in the US is not a free market - that's why it sucks. It's already over 50% socialised, but it's got far more problems than that. Huge liability insurance for doctors is a large factor because US is too retarded to have 'loser pays' in civil court. This liability leads to doctors ordering shit for their patients which they don't actually need but covers the doctor legally, which drives up the cost even further. Then you've got regulations adding a huge bureaucratic overhead too.
You're right though people do game the system and get rich, but they do it through government-provided special privileges. Not through voluntary actions in a free market.
-
To expand on my point: at the moment pharmaceutical companies are regulated by the FDA to ensure they test their products properly for safety and efficacy. The patent office then ensures their right to profit from the drug for a number of years. Even so , many drug companies spend more advertising their products than they do testing them.
In a libertarian free market, I presume both the FDA and the patent office will be done away with as parts of the government protection racket. Drug companies will simply compete for customers in whatever manner they find effective. I'm not convinced this will have the best outcome for patients
-
Many doctors are willing to work pro bono, but they can't at the moment because the regulatory costs mean there is a huge minimum cost for the operation even if the doctor isn't getting paid. Liability insurance is the biggest cost (due to government influence). The huge liability risks lead to overuse (doctors order needless things to cover their arses) which lead to even more inflated prices.
Seriously. Haven't you just spent several pages explaining how humans haven't evolved to be altruistic towards anyone but kin or close acquaintances? And that anyone who thinks otherwise is in cloud cuckoo land? Now you are saying there's no need to worry about people not being able to pay for treatment because doctors will work for free, as long as the pesky government don't interfere.
I readily believe that most medical professionals would do this but isn't the whole basis of a free market system that everyone is expected to behave out of self interest?
I don't know what right wing propaganda you've been reading about the NHS in UK but the rationing of care you describe doesn't happen. No one in this country dies because of lack of access to the latest medical care. Unlike the US where poor people still die of treatable illnesses.
However in the UK cancer drug treatments that only have a 5% chance of success are unlikely to be funded ( I'm not talking about individual cases here; drugs are approved across the board or not at all). We don't waste the taxpayers money on unproven drugs. Still we do have private hospitals as well and people can always use insurance to pay for unorthodox remedies.
Have you considered how a free market will affect the development of new drugs? At the moment new drugs are protected by patent law so that the drug companies can recoup the cost of development. Do you propose doing away with the patent protection so that competition can take place? But then what incentive will companies have to develop new drugs? Or will we do away with the expensive drug trial process and just allow companies to market any drug and caveat emptor? I really don't think it's as simple as you imagine.
I said people aren't entirely altruistic outside of their social group. I've already described fraternal societies many times in this thread, perhaps you should read back through. It is in someone's self-interest to act in the interest of their personal social group; that has direct effect on their lives, unlike people thousands of miles away who they have no interaction whatsoever.
Just search for "NHS waiting lists" - this is what rationing of care is in a socialist system, waiting. See the hospitals and staff providing these surgeries don't get paid any more for these surgeries as they would on a free market when demand is too high, so there's no incentive for other doctors etc. to come in and increase the supply due to the increase in profit margins due to increased price. There's no market incentive to solve the problem of undersupply in socialist systems.
The only reason drugs cost so much to get to market is because FDA requires you spend a billion+ to prove efficacy of your drug, but it's only a formailty - many an ineffective drug has got past the FDA when the drug happens to be from Pfizer, Eli Lily, Merck, etc. - one of the big players who have ex-employees working at the FDA. Actually making a new compound and testing it for safety (safety is far more important for marketability than efficacy, and I believe it is perfectly within someones right to even use drugs not approved for safety if they choose) is fairly cheap in the grand scheme of things. As for efficacy, who is going to prescribe drugs that don't work? Doctors would lose business and reputation rather quickly if they kept prescribing crap (however in today's protected market for doctors, they can get away with that!).
Patents are just government-granted monopolies on products. When you bring a new innovative product to the market, your competitor can't instantly copy you, they have to reverse engineer the product first. Even if you know the chemical structure of a drug, knowing how to synthesize it cost effectively is an entirely different matter. Across pretty much every industry, the cost of reverse engineering is about 70% of the initial R&D, so it is a bit cheaper than starting from scratch. However, the reverse engineering process takes time, and in that time you have the market to yourself anyway.
This also puts different value on different innnovations. If you change one tiny thing that's not very imaginative or innovative, then it won't take long to reverse engineer. But if you do something way out there that's truly innovative, your competitors will take a much longer time getting competing products out on the market.
-
I'm also not sure that the problem of liability insurance can be laid at the door of socialism? My understanding was that the competitive market in legal services has led to the extensive use of "no win no fee" ambulance chasing legal firms, driving up the cost of all kinds of insurance. Something we can thank the free market for I'm afraid
-
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/why-does-us-spend-more-on-health-care.html?m=1
an interesting read although not really relevant if as you say the US doesn't have a free market in health care
-
I'm not blaming socialism for liability insurance costs, I'm just saying that's one reason why US health care is insanely expensive. It is not expensive because of the free market (which hasn't existed in US for quite some time).
Yes there are ambulance chasers, but that's due to there being no "loser pays" - you can threaten lawsuits extremely easily and force others to spend a fortune on legal defense without ever worrying about having to pay for the cost of that - it makes it extremely easy to settle out of court even when the other person will win (because settling will be cheaper than paying legal fees and winning in court). The lack of loser pays is basically like writing a big collective check to the legal industry; it leads to massive overuse of the civil court system.
-
It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone could think an NHS is a bad thing.
Waiting lists kill people. If you've got 12 month waiting lists and only 3 months till you're gonna die unless you have surgery, you're fucked. The lack of paying for the service leads to overuse of the service which only increases waiting times further.
Waiting lists are a form of rationing. Here we use wait-lists, in the U.S. you use ability to pay.
In Canada for example, you can get an MRI for a dog on the same day, but if you're a human you've gotta wait about a month. I'd rather human health care be of a bit higher quality, or at least the same as vetenary care (not that I don't care about animals level of care!).
This is complete and utter bullshit -- that is a Fox News right-wing talking point. I live in Canada. My wife collapsed one day, and she was given an MRI within an hour, after being transported to hospital by ambulance. Your position in the queue is determined by medical need. She needed an MRI immediately, so she got one immediately.
Nightcrawler
-
Following Binco's point on lawyers and the Left. The lawyers are totally in the tank for the Dems because the Dems allow these incredibly high payoffs in medical court cases. Remember the Democrat Senator whose wife was dying of cancer and he was cheating on her? Before becoming Senator, as a lawyer he made over $40,000,000 on a case where - when speaking to a jury made up of mental doorknobs - he claimed he was channeling the dead baby's soul at that moment. The doctor had tried to give the patient what she had wanted all her life: a live-birth rather than Caesarian. Baby died, so from that time on, the moment a doctor sees a little problem in birthing, in you women go to surgery.
$40 million is a big incentive to keep those Dems in power, OBTW, guess who pays - in higher premiums - for all this?
-
The OP and my opinons are exactly the same on this issue.I just have a problem with the Obama "MANDATE". I would be more supportive of a one payer system like in the UK. The law as it stands now is more like forcing the people that have just enough money to afford health care but not enough to buy it and still keep their home other impotant things and force them to buy health care despite the fact that they cant really afford it. Or they can choose to pay a "tax" or penalty which is just as bad.
-
Bullshit -- that is a Fox News right-wing talking point. I live in Canada. My wife collapsed one day, and she was given an MRI within an hour, after being transported to hospital by ambulance. Your position in the queue is determined by medical need. She needed an MRI immediately, so she got one immediately.
Nightcrawler
And if she hadn't collapsed and it wasnt't an emergency? Waiting list for a month plus. You can't get a same day MRI by your own choice.
Just imagine if they rationed food like they fashioned medical care: Oh you haven't collapsed from starvation yet? It's perfectly fine for you to wait your turn then.
-
"Your place in the que is determined by Medical Need." You cant be that naive as to think it will stay that way. That's what they tell you at the beginning, but what soon becomes common-knowledge is that sex, money and power goes a long way in getting to the top of that waiting list. I can't believe in this day and age people think that this power - if one is on a Death Panel - will not be leveraged by those with the power for their own corrupt gains.
What wouldn't you do to save the life of a loved one? Would you suck your Senator's cock? Send your daughter or son to do it if it saves your baby's life?
This situation is the first-fruit of any fascism that dictates thru the government these life-and-death decisions made anonymously. See WWII communications to Gestapo members that will include letters demonstrating the power an anonymous beuracrat had, and the corruption was unending.
-
"Your place in the que is determined by Medical Need." You cant be that naive as to think it will stay that way. That's what they tell you at the beginning, but what soon becomes common-knowledge is that sex, money and power goes a long way in getting to the top of that waiting list. I can't believe in this day and age people think that this power - if one is on a Death Panel - will not be leveraged by those with the power for their own corrupt gains.
What wouldn't you do to save the life of a loved one? Would you suck your Senator's cock? Send your daughter or son to do it if it saves your baby's life?
This situation is the first-fruit of any fascism that dictates thru the government these life-and-death decisions made anonymously. See WWII communications to Gestapo members that will include letters demonstrating the power an anonymous beuracrat had, and the corruption was unending.
I haven't read such a load of delusional tripe in a long, long time -- Death Panels? Gestapo?
If you want to see REAL death panels, look no further than the U.S. insurance industry. If I remember correctly, it was Dr. Nancy Carvalho, then working for Humana, who denied a patient an expensive treatment (surgery) that would have saved the patient's life. She saved Humana on the order of $5 million dollars, and was promoted. (Her conscience later got the better of her, and she later quit. She testified as to this before Congress.)
I know our system works based on personal and family experience. My wife's experience was one thing; I also have a friend who got a new liver last year, and about a dozen years ago a distant relative also got themselves an organ transplant. If both my friend and relative had lived in the U.S., they would have died, as they would have been considered uninsurable.
I'll grant you our system isn't perfect, but it's one hell of a lot better than what you have down in the States. I'll gladly put up with a waiting list as opposed to having 15% of the population without any real access to healthcare.
Nightcrawler
-
Night, your facts are not factual. Nobody's dying in the States for lack of medical attention. It's the PAYING for the med bill and/or the insurance premiums that are the sticking points.
You call it tripe? Do you really think there wont be waiting lists? With 20 millions more people and doctors fleeing these beaureocrat-dominated waters? There will be bribes and corruption instead of affordable insurance, which can be made if the libtards would get out of the way. They wont because this way they CONTROL you.
-
Giving is a great feeling, I support others and always want to. If someone is sick and injured, possibly dieing and can't get help because of there current worth in society and lack of money it is a sick world to live in. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing your needs are met and what your chasing are you interests? I think it is human nature to support others, there are also seeds to greed and ignorance, trust me you don't want to grow one of those seeds when it comes to a persons life.
My mother was a nurse when I was young, contracted hiv on accident while working, obviously that not only changed my life but also hers. My father died when I was young. If there weren't givers in this world we wouldn't be as developed as we are, it is those people that show us new limits to humanity. I can understand if you are in a position where you need to carefully watch all your money to support yourself, your family, or loved ones, and I do believe that the system should be reworked so that those who are struggling have an opportunity to catch up to society and reintegrate themselves. Giving is a great feeling, being welcomed by others for who you are is too, and who would welcome you around them if in the event you could save there life but wont because it cost to much?
-
This idea that people are against Obamacare because they're cheap, mean-spirited and greedy is something your political friends may tell you is the case, but much more important is you have strangers controlling who lives and who dies; strangers controlling all aspects of your health care, which should be between you and your PRIVATE doctor.
Socialism, communism fascism, whatever label fits, wear it: Healthcare is one-eighth the US economy, and these pols want to regulate how, why and where you'll get it; what you eat, what you smoke, what you drink, etc. and their excuse for taking your liberty is ALWAYS because it's the "right" thing to do for those with less opportunity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
My mother was a nurse when I was young, contracted hiv on accident while working, obviously that not only changed my life but also hers.
That's heartbreaking, I realise it doesn't mean much but you have my sympathies that's a genuine tragedy.
-
Socialism, communism fascism, whatever label fits, wear it
Why are all 'left of center' political ideas still viewed by Americans with McCarthy levels of suspicion. Is the "Communist Threat" idea still engrained at some level in American society? Political ideologies are dangerous when taken to the extremes, for either left or right.
-
Socialism, communism fascism, whatever label fits, wear it
Why are all 'left of center' political ideas still viewed by Americans with McCarthy levels of suspicion. Is the "Communist Threat" idea still engrained at some level in American society? Political ideologies are dangerous when taken to the extremes, for either left or right.
Because most liberals are white American upper-middle-class 20 somethings whose trust fund depends upon their daddy's continual pledge of allegiance to 200 year old 'good old boys' ideology?
;D
Yeah I'm joking, before anyone's panties get in a bunch. :P Well......mostly.
There's some really important things that just aren't profitable, and making them profitable is wasteful and stupid, and let's face it, immoral. It's cool to let someone die because they're not rich, or don't want to or can't play the capitalist game? It's cool to let someone have a crushing, life altering debt? It's cool not to fund the rarer diseases and let those people die because it's just not profitable enough to research them?
Anyone who believes any of that is okay has some serious fucking mental issues as far as I'm concerned.
-
My mother was a nurse when I was young, contracted hiv on accident while working, obviously that not only changed my life but also hers.
That's heartbreaking, I realise it doesn't mean much but you have my sympathies that's a genuine tragedy.
It might surprise you how much it means to me to hear that, I can't even articulate the emotions it brings but it is a warm one.
I loved reading through this thread and I just want to share what I noticed.
There is no doubt we all benefit from debate, hearing the sides of others is always helpful if they come with good intentions. Change only comes with actions and in a world of the law, words mean a whole lot, but your emotions and what you do with those(actions) always mean more. This forum is particularly great because of the people here and the fact that they often put there emotions and self right out there for others to see, some judge, and some see, and some are not even sure what they do but it is helpful because it is fuel for our minds, different perspectives. I think there does need to be some concern with what you offer to others as previously posted. All the small lessons in life are so very important when you reach a position in society with any power over others. You are then presented with choices, it is not only knowing but doing and acting in the same fashion that is healthy.
You ever wonder why so many people watch television? If you forget everything, and people try(drugs, alcohol) you rely on human interaction and your emotions. Most all good inventions come with good intentions to serve a good purpose to people in the short, middle, or long term span. When you look at the idea of a National Healthcare System by the way it is viewed in a large sense by the people of a country or state you can see at what stage it is in by how well it is accepted by the people, but what should be looked at is how well it is accepted by the people who will be doing the work. The doctors, the administrators of hospitals, nurses, lab technicians, all the many people that will be providing this service. We know doctors make good money, but it is more than that, doctors hold a high position in society because they are many many things to many many people, when you make people like this angry good things don't come of it because it affects us all. I don't think anybody should want people with genuine power(the good kind) to be upset. It is the people who have acquired wealth one way, and as the world has changed they haven't and now fear they will loose it that resort to measures that are counter-productive for the larger group.
Most of the world holds the knowledge as to what is "right" and what is "wrong", hard work, providing for others, and planning for your journey are the basic basic things we know to be "right". Fact is we have enough people to make enough resources to take care of people, but we don't have enough people that are/can taking care of themselves with the thought of later being able to take care of others. In the future to come you need to be capable of at least showing others what you know, it is how we evolve, but don't forget the negative things you've learned about people either, because with this many of them on the planet whatever you do today is likely to be done tomorrow by somebody else, so always be using your mind.
There is a beautiful quote I read a few years ago,
Zig Ziglar quote, “You can have anything you WANT in life if you will help enough other people get what they WANT!”
We could talk about this quote for a long time, but enjoy it for perspective it brings you. Just notice it doesn't say you can have anything you NEED. How many people feel a NEED each and every day to take care of others? If you do you are an evolved human being and most likely a parent, but you have your limits and those should respected. I think most people are caught up in this chase of obtaining things they want(like cheese) and forget what they need, and forgetting that people are always a better commodity than items(in my opinion).
-
I'm American and i'm fortunate enough to have some money and i pay for my own insurance. I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as i am. I would love to find a system that could take the best care of those less fortunate than i am. If there were a way and everyone could pitch in there fair share that would be great. The facts are the facts and Obamacare will not be that system. My one overwhelming problem with it is that everything our government touches is a complete clusterfuck. It will in know way be the system that the Europeans on this thread are describing.
-
I'm American and i'm fortunate enough to have some money and i pay for my own insurance. I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as i am. I would love to find a system that could take the best care of those less fortunate than i am. If there were a way and everyone could pitch in there fair share that would be great. The facts are the facts and Obamacare will not be that system. My one overwhelming problem with it is that everything our government touches is a complete clusterfuck. It will in know way be the system that the Europeans on this thread are describing.
Check out my thread on The Zeitgeist Movement.
What really bothers me about obamacare is the name. I mean, think about it. Is politics really about individuals who want to do their absolute best for the country, or is it about individuals that only real goal to get elected, no matter how? What do politicians really know about the world that they make decisions about. What qualifies one person to make decision that effects all different aspects of society that this individual most probably has no experience or knowledge about, military, environment, education, etc.?
When I see the footage from the rallies where people cheer and scream and cry because obama got reelected, seriously what the fuck guys. If you think back on all the elections, how much change do we actually notice? If the results were kept a secret and everything was operated behind closed doors, would the majority of the american population actually notice any change? If say the republicans run the country from this moment on, but Obama still remains the 'official' leader, and let's say media didn't do any investigation regarding this, who would actually notice?
Anyway my main problem, why the fuck is it called Obamacare? To me that sort of reminds me of someone that creates an orphanage and names it after himself, which I suppose is fine, but then decides to spend a shit load of money on a massive sign, and a giant statue of himself. Why does he have to immortalize himself in the name for a healthcare plan/idea/whatever? Seriously, I really fucking hate that guy, the way he walks into a room and casually waves, stops, smiles, glances around´, waves again. It's all so perfectly constructed, an emty fasad. Then I hear these people like "yeah Obama is great he is going to solve americas problem". Then there's all these stupid slogans and chants, how about actually sitting down and trying hard to solve the problems.If Obama is such a good man for the jobb who has an ability to solve problems that no one else can, why did he recently spend so much time holding speech and spending time convincing people he could do it? Why not have a system where ability to solve problems is measured and the people that make decisions are people who actually solve problems. Not people with a shitload of money and little or no knowledge about the things they actually make decisions about. The system is so fucked..
Yeah I'm high and just writing random ramblings, I really need to stop doing this its becoming a habit lol
-
they could provide free drugs in a specific store
THAT would be amazing xD