NationStates Jolt Archive

The way I see it there are three options and heres the arguments:

1. Universal health care for all: A civilization society will provide the basic requirments for all its citizens and one of those is universal health care. It is wrong to not provide for lesser off people when we can help them. It is the measure of a people of how they treat there worse off citizens. Everyone should recieve equal health care.

2. Captialist system(is that what you call it): If you can pay for a higher quality of health care you should. Allowing docters to be paid for their quality of service is a given if you want quality. If the government runs health care there would be no competition and it would be run ineffienctly. If you don't contribute to society why should you gets its benefits?

3. Centerist approach: The poor should recieve free healthcare, the rich do not. Allowing for competition between doctors and higher service quality.

Personally I am for option 3 but I could be wrong lets see. Please be civil, my last post kinda deteriated...

I think it should be free for everyone.

I think it should be free for everyone.
Valid opinion why? why should it be free?

Because buying health seems a little unfair. When only the rich can afford it, it raises class struggles.

Because buying health seems a little unfair. When only the rich can afford it, it raises class struggles.
Good point but can't one say that when the government controls healthcare if inherently lowers the quality, afterall most people(assumming) become doctors for the pay, when the government takes over less doctors and less quality? where as if there was competition?(just playing devils advocat here)

Good point, but the best doctors would still be there, the government would pay the difference between what they once got and what they are now getting, pay gradually, so gradually less and less until the 'rich doctor' is no more than a rumor or urban legend. Like the land of milk and honey.

It would be great if everyone could get something as important as healthcare for free. But put simply, nothing is free and I for one do not want to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices when they've been told smoking, sex, and drugs are dangerous to their health!

okay there are some problems with that:
1. taxes would raise
2. after all the rich doctors would be phased out what would be the motivation to become a doctor(12 years in school +internship bettter be something at the end of the road)

Because buying health seems a little unfair.

And, how, exactly is it fair to the middle and upper class, who would be taxed even more highly, just because they manage to make a living?

When only the rich can afford it, it raises class struggles.

The Middle Class can afford healthcare just fine, as long as they have insurance. I shouldn’t be punished just because somebody else can’t afford something.

The main problem with Social healthcare, its dangerous. The quality of healthcare drops because it had to rely on government funding, and the amount of Healthcare workers drop as the economic incentive disappears.

The way I see it there are three options and heres the arguments:

1. Universal health care for all: A civilization society will provide the basic requirments for all its citizens and one of those is universal health care. It is wrong to not provide for lesser off people when we can help them. It is the measure of a people of how they treat there worse off citizens. Everyone should recieve equal health care.

2. Captialist system(is that what you call it): If you can pay for a higher quality of health care you should. Allowing docters to be paid for their quality of service is a given if you want quality. If the government runs health care there would be no competition and it would be run ineffienctly. If you don't contribute to society why should you gets its benefits?

3. Centerist approach: The poor should recieve free healthcare, the rich do not. Allowing for competition between doctors and higher service quality.

Personally I am for option 3 but I could be wrong lets see. Please be civil, my last post kinda deteriated...
Only for fetuses and white, Christian women named Terri Schiavo.

Everyone else has to pay.

They, in turn would pay for yours. Taxes are communal. If you're healthy, then maybe your family won't be. I, for one, would not want to get my money's worth on this particular issue.

The Middle Class can afford healthcare just fine, as long as they have insurance. I shouldn’t be punished just because somebody else can’t afford something.
I agree. That's why we should shut down homeless shelters. Why should we be punished because they can't afford something? Let the bastards starve.

come on i said to keep it civil......

I agree. That's why we should shut down homeless shelters. Why should we be punished because they can't afford something? Let the bastards starve.
thats a bit harsh? a society is judged by its worse off citizens..

You're not being punished. They could just shave off a little bit of military budget. It could work without terribly inconviencing you.

You're not being punished. They could just shave off a little bit of military budget. It could work without terribly inconviencing you.

But what about the military?

And the orphan, Oliver, said, "Please, sir.. Can I have some more?"

The man replied, "Why should I be punished because you can't afford something?"

Tiny Tim's father asked Scrooge for his Christmas bonus. And Scrooge replied, "Why should I be punished because you can't afford something?"

War, poverty, and AIDS spread throughout Africa. And while the United States concentrated on spending its foreign aid on weapons for Israel, Africa suffered, for the same principle of Satanic, Makavelian, Objectivist, despotic, egoistic selfishness.

One less nuclear submarine won't get us invaded.

And the orphan, Oliver, said, "Please, sir.. Can I have some more?"

The man replied, "Why should I be punished because you can't afford something?"

Tiny Tim's father asked Scrooge for his Christmas bonus. And Scrooge replied, "Why should I be punished because you can't afford something?"

War, poverty, and AIDS spread throughout Africa. And while the United States concentrated on spending its foreign aid on weapons for Israel, Africa suffered, for the same principle of Satanic, Makavelian, Objectivist, despotic, egoistic selfishness.
good point

Capitalism is the best here.

Since people pay more money for quality care (and there is competion that keeps prices lower), the quality of healthcare available raises. May not be good for the poor, but there certainly will be charities and the Red Cross for them. ;)

One less nuclear submarine won't get us invaded.

also a good point but that means we could only destroy the world 4 times over instead of 5!

Capitalism is the best here.

Since people pay more money for quality care (and there is competion that keeps prices lower), the quality of healthcare available raises. May not be good for the poor, but there certainly will be charities and the Red Cross for them. ;)


Ahh but healcare prices are rising...

I agree. That's why we should shut down homeless shelters. Why should we be punished because they can't afford something? Let the bastards starve.

Yep. :D

Lower taxes and people will donate more to charity, thusly, fairly giving the homeless a place to go. (Many shelters are privately funded).
By the way, I know you were being sarcastic. I, however, was not.

Yep. :D

Lower taxes and people will donate more to charity, thusly, fairly giving the homeless a place to go. (Many shelters are privately funded).
By the way, I know you were being sarcastic. I, however, was not.
hmm hoover economics you know that failed right?

good! We don't need to destroy the world, or anything. Healthcare will keep improving if the government subsidizes doctors.

I've lived in Canada for a while where they claim to have free health care. When I was there in Ontario, the taxes were ridiculously high, because universal health care is expensive, and taxes were roughly 51 percent. Also, for some reason, prescription drugs were not covered, so you could go to the doctor for free, but your medicine cost a lot. So many people required prescription drug plans, and the poor were forced to keep going to the doctor because they couldn't afford a medicine that would fix their problems. Furthermore, because of those poor constantly going to the doctor and hospital, many people would just live in the hospitals. I kid you not. The rooms were dirty and smelly, as at least when I lived in Canada, the average canadian only bathed once a week. To get a better quality of health care, many people would start getting private health care, which defeated the whole purpose of universal care. All in all, I'd say the canadian hospitals I went to weren't as good as some of the hospitals in the U.S., but where far better than some mexican hospitals - at least there were no armed guards in canadian hospitals.

I'm not doing this to flame, and I'm not making this stuff up. Of course, my stay was over ten years ago, and I obviously haven't been to every doctor and hospital in canada, but what I'm saying is the ideal of universal health care is just too hard to practice, because a country can't have good quality health care without bankrupting itself or its citizens, and there are too many people who would abuse the system.

good! We don't need to destroy the world, or anything. Healthcare will keep improving if the government subsidizes doctors.

like ethinol?

Universal health care is a wonderful concept. It would be tough to make work though. I've experienced health care as the government can provide it -- thanks, but I'll pay for good care whenever possible.

Should we just keep healthcare at its failing status quo?

Edit: Maybe we should have government doctors available but also keep private doctors.

But shouldn't we at least provide healthcare to our worse off?

Such as poor poor children?


another good point burilia

Should we just keep healthcare at its failing status quo?

Edit: Maybe we should have government doctors available but also keep private doctors.
how so...

Ahh but healcare prices are rising...

Which hardcore capitalists would say is because the government is getting too involved, and bringing costs up:

Consider the intrusion of the United States Government into the Constitutionally unsanctioned field of civilian health care:

Since the adoption of Medicare in 1965, the cost of medical care in America has not only exploded almost geometrically; there has been an enormous increase in personnel devoted to processing accounts and filling out forms, as opposed to those actually treating human illness. It would require the imaginative genius of a Dean Swift to capture the essence of what such "health reform" has actually achieved. Older readers may perhaps still remember a time when most of those one saw in a Doctor's office were actually engaged in treating patients, not shuffling papers or computerizing records. Some may even remember the days when no indigent person needed Governmental assistance to see a Doctor, because the Doctor's oath required he treat such person; while the Doctor, himself, made a very good living with far less fear of being sued.

Intrusive Government is not only expensive. Because there really is not the imagined dichotomy between Social and Economic valuations, the distortion of the economics of medicine--or anything else--easily leads to a distortion of the social values inherent in the human actions involved.

our republican friend makes a point come on I know there are hard-core liberals out there defend yourselves!

how so...
split doctors. Hire doctors to work for the government. Not the best doctors, but good ones.

split doctors. Hire doctors to work for the government. Not the best doctors, but good ones.

And they would undermine the market forcing the others to lower their prices Brilliant!

Why thank you.

our republican friend makes a point come on I know there are hard-core liberals out there defend yourselves!

I'm not attacking anyone. Just saying what hardcore capitalists would say. I'm not decided on this issue. ;)

Why thank you.
But it wasn't you idea (liar LIAR Burn him hes a witch!) oh wait damn you miller!

what nothing else?

guess not.

Free for all. People seem to think that because you've being lucky enough to be born to a rich family, you are an inherantly better person and deserve to be given access to better health. On the other than, if you are poor then OBVIOUSLY it is your fault (Bullshit) and it doesn't matter if you suffer because you are a lesser being.

There's no such thing as "free lunch". Or "free healthcare". It does not work anywhere. Just watch hordes of Canadians crossing the border for some health care. Besides obvious points (already raised here) about efficiency, costs, etc., a huge problem with "free" health care is that the need is limitless (just as the need for housing etc.). There's hardly a point where you reach saturation and say "I don't really want any more health care". Seriously, would not it be great if every day a doctor came to your home or office at a convenient time, asked whether you slept well or had any complaints, measured your blood pressure, pulse, etc.?! Never mind the (astronomical) cost - such approach would in fact make some marginal difference (even vs. similar doctor visits every other day or every week) by perhaps catching early signs of a heart attack or something (even if only in one out of twenty million people) that would otherwise go undetected. In other words, no matter how much health care you are getting, you could always use some more. Of course, in the real world you have to stop at some limits (just with housing, cars etc.). And there are only two possibilities here. Either 1) you decide yourself just how much health care (and everything else) you are willing to buy - IF you are paying yourself, or 2) somebody else decides how much health care you get - if that somebody's paying for it. What you have in the second case is rationing, pure and simple. Depending on the circumstances that somebody (usually the government) may actually be willing to give you more health care that you would bother to get on your own (in which case the taxes are surely high and they rob you of a choice to save on health care and spend your money on something else that you value more), but that's not important. What is important is the principle that some government bureaucrat gets to make life and death decisions for you.

guess not.
you know you try to have an inteligent conversation.... well nice to know my atheist thread blew up, you know I just started a thread about nation that were percieved threat and it turned into a huge anti-american thread? I mean you get more luck here if you bash someone.....

There's no such thing as "free lunch". Or "free healthcare". It does not work anywhere. Just watch hordes of Canadians crossing the border for some health care. Besides obvious points (already raised here) about efficiency, costs, etc., a huge problem with "free" health care is that the need is limitless (just as the need for housing etc.). There's hardly a point where you reach saturation and say "I don't really want any more health care". Seriously, would not it be great if every day a doctor came to your home or office at a convenient time, asked whether you slept well or had any complaints, measured your blood pressure, pulse, etc.?! Never mind the (astronomical) cost - such approach would in fact make some marginal difference (even vs. similar doctor visits every other day or every week) by perhaps catching early signs of a heart attack or something (even if only in one out of twenty million people) that would otherwise go undetected. In other words, no matter how much health care you are getting, you could always use some more. Of course, in the real world you have to stop at some limits (just with housing, cars etc.). And there are only two possibilities here. Either 1) you decide yourself just how much health care (and everything else) you are willing to buy - IF you are paying yourself, or 2) somebody else decides how much health care you get - if that somebody's paying for it. What you have in the second case is rationing, pure and simple. Depending on the circumstances that somebody (usually the government) may actually be willing to give you more health care that you would bother to get on your own (in which case the taxes are surely high and they rob you of a choice to save on health care and spend your money on something else that you value more), but that's not important. What is important is the principle that some government bureaucrat gets to make life and death decisions for you.


good point, can the system be fixed?

hmm hoover economics you know that failed right?

Only because of the unavoidable and inevitable economic collapse. Hoover’s policies did no lead to the great depression. His administration was a casualty of the people blaming the government for all their problems. The New Deal was a temporary fix, and we are now seeing how ineffective it is with the Social Security mess the US is now in.

Only because of the unavoidable and inevitable economic collapse. Hoover’s policies did no lead to the great depression. His administration was a casualty of the people blaming the government for all their problems. The New Deal was a temporary fix, and we are now seeing how ineffective it is with the Social Security mess the US is now in.

hmm very interesting...... but hoovers econmic policies were a bit misguided... "lets give all the rich the money and they'll give it to the poor, honestly how many rich people are greedy?"

[QUOTE=Undelia]Lower taxes and people will donate more to charity, thusly, fairly giving the homeless a place to go. (Many shelters are privately funded).QUOTE]

That's an interesting theory. I, personally, would think that it would go 'Lower taxes and people will buy a bigger car', but...

Generally the richer people are the greedier they are in relative terms. For example, when I used to do a paper route, it was always the poorer families that tipped more at christmas than richer families (Of course there were exceptions). Therefore, making people richer ain't going to make them more charitable.

hmm very interesting...... but hoovers econmic policies were a bit misguided... "lets give all the rich the money and they'll give it to the poor, honestly how many rich people are greedy?"

Yeah, he was an elitist, but he did give his presidential paycheck back to the treasury. Although, he was against minimum wage and anti-trust laws, which is basically as unrealistic as socialism. The Middle Class is what can be relied on to provide charity, unfortunately they are the ones having their money stolen by the IRS, so they don’t have much incentive to give up more.

Generally the richer people are the greedier they are in relative terms. For example, when I used to do a paper route, it was always the poorer families that tipped more at christmas than richer families (Of course there were exceptions). Therefore, making people richer ain't going to make them more charitable.
Well If I was a billionair(which i am not) I would shit on hundred and give it to the poor.... but I am an asshole..

People seem to think that because you've being lucky enough to be born to a rich family, you are an inherantly better person and deserve to be given access to better health.

While it's certainly false in numerous individual cases (Paris Hilton immediately comes to mind :-), in a certain sense it is actually true STATISTICALLY. And it is very sound public policy - to give preference to the rich over the poor (especially when it's actually in the form of simply allowing the rich to pay for themselves). From a purely utilitarian point of view (like survival and continuing existence of society), to the society as a whole more productive people are worth more than less productive people, and in any more or less free society more productive people tend to be richer that less productive people. So statistically rich people are more valuable to society than poor people - because they contribute more (again, I'm talking STATISTICALLY - not about any particular individual). To put in in crude terms, if you walk down Wall Street, see an investement banker and a bum simultaneously have a heart attack and can save only one of them, society will clearly be better off if you save the banker. I don't see anything wrong with applying this idea to health care policies in general. Especially considering that it's the banker who actually pays no matter what policy you adopt.

Part of the problem with the current healthcare system is that we have more drugs on the market than the market can possibly sustain. A lot of our drugs today come directly out of government and university laboratories.

Manipulate the market forces, and high-*** prices are what you get.



Nationalize it, and you'll get better care; for a decade or two. After that, the government is going to have spend more and more money to get the same results.
Less new doctors, too. Everyone criticizes how much doctors are paid, but that attracts that best minds to the field (hell, about 1/4 of the AP core at my school plans on a medical profression)
The solution? Give your doctors hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus benefits. Long-term results? See "American Education System"

The point is that since society, especially capitalist society, is never going to be a meritocracy, such a system that treats rich people as 'better' is morally wrong. In your example, the investmant banker might have had a very easy life funded by his parents who put him through college whilst the bum might have had far more potential and worked a lot harder but simply failed due to not getting a good education and not having any family to fall back on.

Part of the problem with the current healthcare system is that we have more drugs on the market than the market can possibly sustain. A lot of our drugs today come directly out of government and university laboratories.

Manipulate the market forces, and high-*** prices are what you get.



Nationalize it, and you'll get better care; for a decade or two. After that, the government is going to have spend more and more money to get the same results.
Less new doctors, too. Everyone criticizes how much doctors are paid, but that attracts that best minds to the field (hell, about 1/4 of the AP core at my school plans on a medical profression)
The solution? Give your doctors hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus benefits. Long-term results? See "American Education System"
interesting...

While it's certainly false in numerous individual cases (Paris Hilton immediately comes to mind :-), in a certain sense it is actually true STATISTICALLY. And it is very sound public policy - to give preference to the rich over the poor (especially when it's actually in the form of simply allowing the rich to pay for themselves). From a purely utilitarian point of view (like survival and continuing existence of society), to the society as a whole more productive people are worth more than less productive people, and in any more or less free society more productive people tend to be richer that less productive people. So statistically rich people are more valuable to society than poor people - because they contribute more (again, I'm talking STATISTICALLY - not about any particular individual). To put in in crude terms, if you walk down Wall Street, see an investement banker and a bum simultaneously have a heart attack and can save only one of them, society will clearly be better off if you save the banker. I don't see anything wrong with applying this idea to health care policies in general. Especially considering that it's the banker who actually pays no matter what policy you adopt.

But that's people who are rich. Being a child of a rich family doesn't necessarily mean you'll do more work. Case in point, my parents aren't 'rich', but they have enough money to pay for my tuition fees, accomodation etc at uni. As a result, unlike most people I know, I don't have a job (it also helps that I don't waste most of my money on alcohol, but still).

However, I'll agree that when it comes to people who are rich because they /make/ money, they are, statistically, more valuable. But does that mean, to follow the analogy through, that if you have a choice between nursing one back to health and letting the other die, or bringing both to a stable enough point that an ambulance can get there, that you should take the former option, on the basis that the rich one being up and about sooner would be more beneficial than both of them being alive?

Besides which, if you look at what people contribute as the whole basis for their worth as a human, then the elderly and some disabled are utterly worthless and should be rounded up and slaughtered for the good of society.

Because buying health seems a little unfair. When only the rich can afford it, it raises class struggles.

While this sounds ideal, it doesn't work in practice.

Come to Canada and get injured.

whilst the bum might have had far more potential and worked a lot harder but simply failed due to not getting a good education and not having any family to fall back on.

Once again the fallacy of “the working poor" needs to be cleared up. I refer you to Mr. Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040601.shtml).

Once again the fallacy of “the working poor" needs to be cleared up. I refer you to Mr. Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040601.shtml).

But what does that have to do with saying that people who start off in a bad situation have less of a chance to get a good job?

[QUOTE=Artanias]I've lived in Canada for a while where they claim to have free health care. When I was there in Ontario, the taxes were ridiculously high, because universal health care is expensive, and taxes were roughly 51 percent.........


I am a Canadian from Ontario and most Canadians are very proud of our health care. Many see it as a primary difference between us and the U.S. However, the stuff you said isn't far off the mark. Taxes are high, and be prepared to wait hours in a hospital emergency room. I broke my arm and I waited six hours for someone to look at me! Until recently, it has been illegal to even seek out private care in Canada but a court ruling in Quebec is starting to change that. I'm nervous at the prospect of two-tiered health care (public and private side by side) but maybe if those who can afford private get out of the emergency room line-up, those who can't will have shorter wait times. But I don't know! It's such a big part of our national identity that I would hate to see it go. :confused:

But what does that have to do with saying that people who start off in a bad situation have less of a chance to get a good job?

An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 have since then also been in the top 20 percent. This inconvenient fact has been out there for years -- and has been ignored for years by those who want more government programs to relieve individuals from responsibility for making themselves more productive and therefore higher income earners.

That's what it has to do with it.

I say we get two parallel systems. One public one, where the state pays for the doctors, and the state provides equipment and so on, and a private one where doctors have to somehow provide better service since people pay extra money.
So rich fella has the choice (oh, conservatives love that word as long as it hasn't got to do with abortion or gay people): Either pay zilch and get a good average check up, or pay extra and get a free coffee and a TV in the waiting room as well.
----------------------------------
And I just plain disagree with this libertarian/conservative idea that poor people are poor because they're lazy (which is essentially what you're saying).
Or that unemployed people are unemployed because they're lazy.
It just isn't the case.

Once again the fallacy of “the working poor" needs to be cleared up. I refer you to Mr. Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040601.shtml).


Mr Sowell, frankly, is playing crappy games with statistics. He does disingenuous crap like taking that single comment from a single source: "One in four workers earns $18,800 a year or less, with few if any benefits", and then attempts to dissect it in order to dismiss the problem.

Are some of those part-time workers? Yes! Does that suddenly make them NOT working poor? Depends? Are they part-time because they have not found full-time work yet? Are they part-time because they are a single parent struggling to make ends meet? And besides, the 18,800 statistic only relates to a poverty line for SINGLE fucking people. He doesn't even touch on the families struggling to get by on depressed wages in a struggling region or whatever.


Hell, any moron can selectively look at one or two little pieces of a puzzle and marginalize their importance. But to equate that to the notion that the rest of the puzzle doesn't even exist is a bullshit proposition.

The point is that since society, especially capitalist society, is never going to be a meritocracy, such a system that treats rich people as 'better' is morally wrong. In your example, the investmant banker might have had a very easy life funded by his parents who put him through college whilst the bum might have had far more potential and worked a lot harder but simply failed due to not getting a good education and not having any family to fall back on.

Look. I said STATISTICALLY. Besides, I'm not passing any judgements as to who is "better". If you don't do anything (my strongly preferred solution), than the natural result will be that the rich will get more health care. If you insist that the government should intervene in such a manner that the rich will get LESS health care and the poor will get more that they otherwise would have, it's a legitimate and not particularly original point view, but you fail to demonstrate that such policy would result in a net benefit (rather than detriment) to society as a whole.

While it's certainly false in numerous individual cases (Paris Hilton immediately comes to mind :-), in a certain sense it is actually true STATISTICALLY. And it is very sound public policy - to give preference to the rich over the poor (especially when it's actually in the form of simply allowing the rich to pay for themselves). From a purely utilitarian point of view (like survival and continuing existence of society), to the society as a whole more productive people are worth more than less productive people, and in any more or less free society more productive people tend to be richer that less productive people. So statistically rich people are more valuable to society than poor people - because they contribute more (again, I'm talking STATISTICALLY - not about any particular individual). To put in in crude terms, if you walk down Wall Street, see an investement banker and a bum simultaneously have a heart attack and can save only one of them, society will clearly be better off if you save the banker. I don't see anything wrong with applying this idea to health care policies in general. Especially considering that it's the banker who actually pays no matter what policy you adopt.

Because rich people have a special way to experience happiness? From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it doesn't matter if people get what they "deserve", the bottom line is the amount of total happiness experienced. The idea is that an investment banker who already has a million dollars probably doesn't need that extra hundred or thousand that the poor sick person needs to stay alive. It's not "Let's build a big electric fence around the hospitals and shoot rich people who try to get in!". And I personally don't think a banker is the most valuable person to society, I think it would be the person who works (whether it be through entrepeneurship or coal mining) instead of the person who sits on money he made through usury.

thats a bit harsh? a society is judged by its worse off citizens..

If society were judged by its worst off citizens, every country would be third world. That philosophy is for commies and potheads.

And I just plain disagree with this libertarian/conservative idea that poor people are poor because they're lazy (which is essentially what you're saying).
Or that unemployed people are unemployed because they're lazy.
It just isn't the case.

Really? Why is that? Because it make you feel better to think that way?


Are some of those part-time workers? Yes! Does that suddenly make them NOT working poor? Depends? Are they part-time because they have not found full-time work yet? Are they part-time because they are a single parent struggling to make ends meet? And besides, the 18,800 statistic only relates to a poverty line for SINGLE fucking people. He doesn't even touch on the families struggling to get by on depressed wages in a struggling region or whatever.

Did you even read it?

Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth -- or fewer than 10 percent of the workers -- who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense.

Makes sense to me.

Besides which, if you look at what people contribute as the whole basis for their worth as a human, then the elderly and some disabled are utterly worthless and should be rounded up and slaughtered for the good of society.

This is a totally illogical conclusion. I am in fact strongly against euthanasia. However I still do not see how mandatory redistribution of wealth from more productive people to less productive people (which seems to be standard social policy all over the world) benefits society. In fact it harms it by lowering average productivity - 1) it reduces proportion of highly productive people (not only through denying them health care but also through artificially limiting the number of their children by forcing them to spend their resources to support numerous offspring of the least productive and responsible members of society), 2) it also lowers productivity of highly productive people by destroying their incentives (why work your ass off if you'll be heavily taxed anyway and should you get ill from all that hard work, you won't even be allowed to buy good health care).

Consider the intrusion of the United States Government into the Constitutionally unsanctioned field of civilian health care:

Since the adoption of Medicare in 1965, the cost of medical care in America has not only exploded almost geometrically; there has been an enormous increase in personnel devoted to processing accounts and filling out forms, as opposed to those actually treating human illness. It would require the imaginative genius of a Dean Swift to capture the essence of what such "health reform" has actually achieved. Older readers may perhaps still remember a time when most of those one saw in a Doctor's office were actually engaged in treating patients, not shuffling papers or computerizing records. Some may even remember the days when no indigent person needed Governmental assistance to see a Doctor, because the Doctor's oath required he treat such person; while the Doctor, himself, made a very good living with far less fear of being sued.

Intrusive Government is not only expensive. Because there really is not the imagined dichotomy between Social and Economic valuations, the distortion of the economics of medicine--or anything else--easily leads to a distortion of the social values inherent in the human actions involved.

Wow, I'm impressed. It's not easy to mix and match so many different logical fallacies into the same post, but you've managed to do it. Strawman, post hoc, good ol' days, it's really quite an achievement.

Unfortunately, it's not one that makes much sense stacked up to what is usually termed "The Real World." The simple fact is that while the United States is the one nation in the Industrialized World that does not have a universalized health care system, it is also the nation that, despite the fact that it is the most capitalistic health care available in the world, has the highest amount of money paid to overhead and "paperwork" in the world. The inference, therefore, is that capitalism is not incompatible with paperwork, and socialist healthcare is not necessarily equivalent to low levels of healthcare and sprawling bureaucracy.

Counting public and private expenditures for healthcare-related expenses, the U.S. spends about 15% of its income on healthcare. This compares with about 7-10% in the rest of the industrialized world. Despite this fact, most measures of real healthcare efficacy in the U.S., such as infant mortality and life expectancy, are closer to those of developing nations like South Korea than they are to other industrialized nations like Sweden. So the long and short of it, sweetheart, is that while other "socialized" nations like Sweden do have a government-funded system of healthcare, the net effect is that they pay less in the form of taxes than we do in the form of insurance payments and out-of-pocket expenditures, and to boot they have on average far better medical care than the average American has.

Put simply, the tradeoff in America's system, compared with a public system like Britain, is a very simple one: while in the U.K. you might not be able to find as experienced or as qualified a doctor in certain rare procedures as you would in the U.S., you would also never have to worry about not getting medical care if you, for example, slipped and fell into the street and a car hit you. By contrast, America has the best medical care available in the world if you are wealthy, but by contrast 50 million Americans would risk bankruptcy if the above accident were to happen to them, because they have no insurance and would have to pay medical bills out of pocket, and did I mention that hospitals routinely jack up the price even double and triple the comparable cost of treatment for an uninsured person as they would have paid had they been insured. In my mind, that tradeoff is simply unnacceptable.

instead of the person who sits on money he made through usury.

How medieval of you.

[QUOTE=Artanias]I've lived in Canada for a while where they claim to have free health care. When I was there in Ontario, the taxes were ridiculously high, because universal health care is expensive, and taxes were roughly 51 percent.........


I am a Canadian from Ontario and most Canadians are very proud of our health care. Many see it as a primary difference between us and the U.S. However, the stuff you said isn't far off the mark. Taxes are high, and be prepared to wait hours in a hospital emergency room. I broke my arm and I waited six hours for someone to look at me! Until recently, it has been illegal to even seek out private care in Canada but a court ruling in Quebec is starting to change that. I'm nervous at the prospect of two-tiered health care (public and private side by side) but maybe if those who can afford private get out of the emergency room line-up, those who can't will have shorter wait times. But I don't know! It's such a big part of our national identity that I would hate to see it go. :confused:

May I humbly suggest that you have a serious identity crisis? Seriously, just ask the French what it means to be French, and it will not even occur to them to mention "unlike the US, we have free health care". The Canadian nation is very, very sick. BTW, does your health system cover mental health? You might use it as a nation.

I really can't see why more people aren't going with option three. If you're poor, fine, you get the healthcare you need. If you worked your ass off to become rich (or if you are just a hell of a businessman), you and your family can get better healthcare. What is so wrong with that?

Really? Why is that? Because it make you feel better to think that way?
No. Why would you think that?
When it comes to wage negotiations, there is a certain imbalance of power there. Especially in times of unemployment, the worker basically has to accept whatever he can get.
That is just one example of how forces outside the market affect these things. Keynes already demonstrated similar things some time ago.
If the markets could ever function in a vacuum, then yes, the reason people are unemployed would be that they didn't accept low enough wages. But in real life, people are unemployed just because of the Business cycle (which by the way would be 10x worse if there wasn't governmental intervention in the economy)
But I'm afraid that a perfect market (that you would need for a libertarian society) is just as unrealistic as a communist society.

Did you even read it?


Obviously since I made comments that included fucking details from the article.


Makes sense to me.

What? It makes sense that an argument equating a factually unsupported mathematical derivation that assumes the poverty line for a SINGLE worker should be equated to all workers? (i.e. no acknowledgement that some people have families)?

Or it makes sense that his assertion that marginally under 10% of workers by HIS oversimplified math are true working poor equates to YOUR assertion that the existance of the working poor is a fallacy?

Even using his bogus numbers, one in ten working people fall into a category and you equate that to being a non-issue? Call me fucking crazy, but if one in ten people suddenly got an incurable disease, they'd call it a fucking epidemic, not a non-issue!

How medieval of you.

Well isn't usury a pretty unchristian activity to partake in? Or unislamic or unmany religions?

Universal health care is why the United States makes most of the advancements in medical research. When burdened with providing free health care, less money can be used for research and production. Infact, since hospitals already must stabalize anyone brought to an emergency room, thousands of dollars are spent on those that can't afford the bills. I have nothing against caring for people in an emergecy room, I'm just pointing out that that drives up other hospital costs to those who can pay.

A lot of other countries depend on the United States for the research alone. Therefore you need at least one or two strong countries that remain capitalist so they can promote research.

I personally am for the capitalist system. Or rather the United States system. If you are hurt you will be stabalized and if you can't pay, no sweat. Kind of like education through high school. But if you need some kind of expensive treatment for cancer, or an operation, well you need to pay for it. Just like college or night school.

The poor get the basics and the rich get what they pay for, works for me.


By the way, EvilMass, no offense but you spurr on this conversation just like a school teacher.

a society is judged by its worse off citizens..

A society should be judged by how it treats all of its citizens. A government that treats its citizens unequally is failing.

I said that it should be provided for everyone. I don't think that the government should actually provide it, whereas, it should only pay for it. A universal insurance, I guess. The healthcare is supplied by private providers, and the people can choose whether to accept healthcare and who to accept it from, with the government paying for basic and necessary health expenditures.

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination]A society should be judged by how it treats all of its citizens. A government that treats its citizens unequally is failing.
QUOTE]


Isn't that every government in the history of man?

Unfortunately, it's not one that makes much sense stacked up to what is usually termed "The Real World." The simple fact is that while the United States is the one nation in the Industrialized World that does not have a universalized health care system, it is also the nation that, despite the fact that it is the most capitalistic health care available in the world, has the highest amount of money paid to overhead and "paperwork" in the world. The inference, therefore, is that capitalism is not incompatible with paperwork, and socialist healthcare is not necessarily equivalent to low levels of healthcare and sprawling bureaucracy.

:eek: Wow. Another person who either didn’t read, or is to blinded by unrealistic ideology to comprehend. The author is blaming the paper work on Medicare (an essentially socialist program).

Despite this fact, most measures of real healthcare efficacy in the U.S., such as infant mortality and life expectancy, are closer to those of developing nations like South Korea than they are to other industrialized nations like Sweden

A significant portion of our urban population refuse to use safe, reliable and cheap protection when engaging in sexual activates. This results in a very high instance of AIDS and other STDs. Baby’s born with HIV don’t tend to live very long and neither do their adult counterparts, who are to blame for their own as well as their child's affliction. Also, we have a high infant mortality rate, because many poor urban women have children to get more welfare. They neglect these children and they die. Yeah, socialism really works. :rolleyes: Oh, and they usually keep reporting that the child is alive for mounts after its tragic and unnecessary death.

There is no way you should say socialist because then taxes are so high its not even funny and you end up paying for 3 other peoples besides your own. I mean we could give all our money to the government right thats not communism is it????? WOW! Progressive is just stupid all around... I am a young healthy man and believe it or not i don't need to pay the government money to give me a respirator or a feeding tube! I JUST WANNA BE COVERED IF I GET IN A HUGE ACCIDENT! I dont need to pay 500 bucks more for crap i dont use... and better yet for ohter people and stuff they wont use... OK BACK IN THE DAY OF PILGRIMAGE did you trade a horse for a chicken? No you traded something for an equal other object and I will use my money to pay for what I need and NOTHIN ELSE! ANd for all the people that say well im unemployed and i need it government give it to me! GUESS WHAT THERE SHOULD BE ANYONE UNEMPLOYED! THERE IS ALWAYS A SPOT IN THE US MILITARY FOR YOU! NOT ALWAYS FIGHTING heck you could get martha to come cook for the troops with you... BEST PART IS! WHEN YOU ARE IN THE ARMY YOU GET FREE HEALTHCARE!! CAPITALIST IS THE WAY TO GO NOT COMMUNIST SOCIALISM!

I really can't see why more people aren't going with option three. If you're poor, fine, you get the healthcare you need. If you worked your ass off to become rich (or if you are just a hell of a businessman), you and your family can get better healthcare. What is so wrong with that?


Maybe because a sliding scale almost invariably leaves some people stuck in the middle between getting free health care, and being able to afford proper care when needed.

Maybe because some of us could forsee a situation where health care is free to all, but a system where the government still deals with healthcare providers in a competitive manner to ensure cost-efficiencies are found.


And maybe because most people have felt compelled to come to a conclusion that falls on one side or the other, and the middle ground seems to be unpopular in today's partisan bickering.


Personally, I fall into the universal health care camp, although I confess that many bureaucracies could do a much better job of delivering the product.


And besides, the notion that a government-funded system can't lead to the best technologies is largely disproven by the US military procurement systems. Where would GE, Boeing, Raytheon, etc be technology-wise without the government?

It's all a matter of whether it's important enough for you to fund it properly.

A society should be judged by how it treats all of its citizens. A government that treats its citizens unequally is failing.

I said that it should be provided for everyone. I don't think that the government should actually provide it, whereas, it should only pay for it. A universal insurance, I guess. The healthcare is supplied by private providers, and the people can choose whether to accept healthcare and who to accept it from, with the government paying for basic and necessary health expenditures.

I believe that's how the canadian system works: you go to a private hospital and use your universal government-supplied health insurance to pay for it.

Because rich people have a special way to experience happiness? From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it doesn't matter if people get what they "deserve", the bottom line is the amount of total happiness experienced. The idea is that an investment banker who already has a million dollars probably doesn't need that extra hundred or thousand that the poor sick person needs to stay alive. It's not "Let's build a big electric fence around the hospitals and shoot rich people who try to get in!". And I personally don't think a banker is the most valuable person to society, I think it would be the person who works (whether it be through entrepeneurship or coal mining) instead of the person who sits on money he made through usury.

The goal of society is survival, i.e. perpetuating its own existence, not maximizing total happiness. Luxuries like that are nice, but don't forget that since 1941 the American nation has been continuously fighting for its physical survival in a largely hostile world (where at any given moment most people want all Americans dead, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation) and will have to continue to do so for at least several more decades. Among other things that have kept Americans alive so far is astonishingly high productivity.

Isn't that every government in the history of man?

Yes, there has never been a totally successful government, and there never will be, but they are getting better.

But I'm afraid that a perfect market (that you would need for a libertarian society) is just as unrealistic as a communist society.

Agreed.

A society should be judged by how it treats all of its citizens. A government that treats its citizens unequally is failing.

Exactly. And in any country with "progressive" tax system (BTW it was first proposed in Communist Manifesto) the government treats its citizens unequally (by forcing some citizens to give their money to others).

Exactly. And in any country with "progressive" tax system (BTW it was first proposed in Communist Manifesto) the government treats its citizens unequally (by forcing some citizens to give their money to others).

Amen. Equal protection under the law should be the goal of all Governments, that includes the tax code.

Exactly. And in any country with "progressive" tax system (BTW it was first proposed in Communist Manifesto) the government treats its citizens unequally (by forcing some citizens to give their money to others).

Wealth redistribution is wrong, but a graduated income tax is not depending on how you look at it.

The goal of society is survival, i.e. perpetuating its own existence, not maximizing total happiness. Luxuries like that are nice, but don't forget that since 1941 the American nation has been continuously fighting for its physical survival in a largely hostile world (where at any given moment most people want all Americans dead, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation) and will have to continue to do so for at least several more decades. Among other things that have kept Americans alive so far is astonishingly high productivity.

I was replying to the part where I believed you misrepresented utilitarianism. The reason survival is important is because you need to live to experience happiness. And I don't think most people "want all Americans dead". If they do, it tends to be because they think America has a materialistic, commerical society that it's unfairly exporting to other nations.

:eek: Wow. Another person who either didn’t read, or is to blinded by unrealistic ideology to comprehend. The author is blaming the paper work on Medicare (an essentially socialist program).


that is representative of a problem with a specific programs design, not with the CONCEPT of a WELL-RUN program. Equating the realization that a poorly run program is in place with the idea that there should be no similar program of better design is rediculous.

Which is to say that this is a poor argument against the concept of universal health care, although perhaps a good argument that Medicare needs reform.



A significant portion of our urban population refuse to use safe, reliable and cheap protection when engaging in sexual activates. This results in a very high instance of AIDS and other STDs. Baby’s born with HIV don’t tend to live very long and neither do their adult counterparts, who are to blame for their own as well as their child's affliction. Also, we have a high infant mortality rate, because many poor urban women have children to get more welfare. They neglect these children and they die. Yeah, socialism really works. :rolleyes: Oh, and they usually keep reporting that the child is alive for mounts after its tragic and unnecessary death.

So, by your own admission a significant portion of your population are morons?

Shit, even most people here that get labelled as anti-american don't go THAT far...

So, by your own admission a significant portion of your population are morons?

Yes.
It is of note that this segment of the population votes over 90% Democrat.

Maybe because a sliding scale almost invariably leaves some people stuck in the middle between getting free health care, and being able to afford proper care when needed.
That's a flaw in fiscal policies and systems of tax and how the government draws poverty lines, not a flaw in the sliding scale concept.

Maybe because some of us could forsee a situation where health care is free to all, but a system where the government still deals with healthcare providers in a competitive manner to ensure cost-efficiencies are found.
LOL, they're paid by the government based on how good they are? Do you realize the kind of hell people would raise on someone being paid for being good at their job? That's such a subjective concept and would be abused ridiculously and blow tons of government funds.


And maybe because most people have felt compelled to come to a conclusion that falls on one side or the other, and the middle ground seems to be unpopular in today's partisan bickering.
That's what I was kind of thinkin'.

And besides, the notion that a government-funded system can't lead to the best technologies is largely disproven by the US military procurement systems. Where would GE, Boeing, Raytheon, etc be technology-wise without the government?
The military is different. Military developers still get paid based on output, because they are producing a good, as opposed to healthcare, which is a service.

It's all a matter of whether it's important enough for you to fund it properly.
To give healthcare the funding it would need for a governmental universal healthcare system to work would be ridiculously costly, and incentive for doctors to better themselves would be nonexistant, because they would be on government pay, as opposed to being paid based on skill and success.

Yes.
It is of note that this segment of the population votes over 90% Democrat.

You are ridiculous. You don't seem to reason out your thoughts very well.

:eek: Wow. Another person who either didn’t read, or is to blinded by unrealistic ideology to comprehend. The author is blaming the paper work on Medicare (an essentially socialist program).

Thank you, but I understood it quite well. Apparently you didn't understand my refutation, so I will lay it out more clearly.

The refutation was pretty simple, IMO: if socialism were the cause of expeditures for bureaucratic overhead, then the most socialistic systems would have the most bureaucratic overhead. America has the least socialistic medical system, but it does have the greatest expenditures associated with bureaucratic overhead. Therefore, we should conclude that socialism and bureacratic overhead are A) not connected, or B) connected? Maybe my logic is off, but it seems to me that based on the evidence presented, A would be the better of the two options.

Furthermore, the argument makes no explicit connection between bureaucratic overhead and Medicare, but rather leaves the reader to make that connection on his own. The reason why it makes this unwarranted leap is because Medicare consistently has lower levels of bureaucratic overhead than does any privately owned HMO. Bureaucratic overhead has risen since 1965, but that is because in 1965, people didn't go to HMO's, whereas now they do. Hence my use of the term "post hoc fallacy", short for "post hoc ergo proptor hoc." This is Latin for "After this, therefore because of this."


A significant portion of our urban population refuse to use safe, reliable and cheap protection when engaging in sexual activates. This results in a very high instance of AIDS and other STDs. Baby’s born with HIV don’t tend to live very long and neither do their adult counterparts, who are to blame for their own as well as their child's affliction. Also, we have a high infant mortality rate, because many poor urban women have children to get more welfare. They neglect these children and they die. Yeah, socialism really works. :rolleyes: Oh, and they usually keep reporting that the child is alive for mounts after its tragic and unnecessary death.

Many portions of our population do indeed suffer from a far greater mortality rate than do other portions, such as African American males, but your attribution of the cause of the problem to a failure to protect themselves from sexually-transmitted diseases is not only categorically false, but it borders on the racist as well, because it plays on the myths of the welfare queen and the black sexual predator.

HIV kills about 40,000 people per year. By contrast, smoking and heart disease together kill about 1 million per year, so it stands to reason that smoking and heart disease have a hell of a lot more to do with mortality rates than does HIV. African Americans and other minorities suffer most greatly from heart disease and smoking-related illnesses; in point of fact the life expectancy of the average African-American male is significantly lower than that of his white or Asian counterpart. The reason why they suffer is because African Americans are far more likely than Caucasians and Asians to be in poverty, which means that they are uninsured and cannot afford regular doctor's visit. So while a white middle-class male will usually be able to go to a doctor and get medical treatment for his high blood pressure, the first time a lower wage African-American will recieve treatment is usually by getting zapped back to life in an emergency room after he suffers a preventable heart attack.

So yes, Virginia, in that "socialism" in the form of universal health care might allow an African-American blue collar worker to recieve medical care before he suffers irreperable damage to the heart, it is good. Capitalism, insofar as it discourages him from recieving treatment because he can't afford treatment, is bad.

This is what I mean by people saying that the rich are ALWAYS better people, have 'worked their assess off' and thus deserve to be treated better. Please. Whilst it might be true in some circumstances, generally lower paid work is harder than highly paid work - regardless of pay, which would you honestly prefer to do as your job? Janitor or Investment Banker? I know i'd rather go for Investment banker - it's probably a more rewarding and less monotomous job than burger flipping

You could then argue that you have to work really hard in education to get highly paid jobs, but that makes little sense as well. Which would you rather do? Study or burger flip?

Besides which, it really does amuse me when people claim no one would ever bother trying to get a good job in socialism because they'd be taxed so much. Really? So because if I become a good doctor I "only" earn $100,000 a year as opposed to $200,000 a year, I say 'Ahh forget it! I might as well take a minimum wage job!' Just because they don't earn an INSANE amount of money which nobody would ever need anyway, does not mean they aren't still better off. The idea of socialism isn't to make everyone equal, but to make opportunity equal, reduce the gap between rich and poor and make sure nobody starves to death or dies of easily treated medical problems because they cannot afford to pay for it.

Also, we have a high infant mortality rate, because many poor urban women have children to get more welfare. They neglect these children and they die. Yeah, socialism really works. :rolleyes: Oh, and they usually keep reporting that the child is alive for mounts after its tragic and unnecessary death.

So that's why infant mortality is higher than in more socialist nations? Because of a socialist program? I just don't get how that would work.

Maybe everyone should take a step back and define socialism!

Then we could go on and look at some "socialist" places that have made it pretty well, just to get rid of the idea that "socialism doesn't work".

Here's Wiki (oh great, great Wiki....):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The military is different. Military developers still get paid based on output, because they are producing a good, as opposed to healthcare, which is a service.

To give healthcare the funding it would need for a governmental universal healthcare system to work would be ridiculously costly, and incentive for doctors to better themselves would be nonexistant, because they would be on government pay, as opposed to being paid based on skill and success.

Healthcare is both a service AND a good. After all, people here credit the number of advances in medical technology to the free-market system in the US. Through funding health-care properly the technological advances can still be properly funded, and - as with the military providers - also then exported for aditional economic gain.

And even under systems such as the Canadian one, most practicing doctors are NOT paid on salary. They are reimbursed scale rates for procedures. So a good doctor still can find themselves with more work - and hence more income - by building a reputation, or by specializing in higher-priced procedures. Those that elect to work directly for a hospital may, of course, just be salaried employees, but that sort of decision regarding career path is also true in the US right?

Sometimes you have to think outside the box a little, but there ARE ways to set up a system that provides universal care within an environment that includes aspects of a free market. The fact that the bills all go to one place doesn't mean that there aren't ways to include consumer choice into the system.

This is what I mean by people saying that the rich are ALWAYS better people, have 'worked their assess off' and thus deserve to be treated better. Please. Whilst it might be true in some circumstances, generally lower paid work is harder than highly paid work - regardless of pay, which would you honestly prefer to do as your job? Janitor or Investment Banker? I know i'd rather go for Investment banker - it's probably a more rewarding and less monotomous job than burger flipping
The thing is, the investment banker worked to get to where he is by educating himself and using his talents to push himself forward, whereas the janitor smoked pot through highschool, dropped out, smoked some more pot, then went back to highschool to clean the shit out of the toilets. That, or he tried to be an investment banker and wasn't smart enough, which is his problem. ;)

You could then argue that you have to work really hard in education to get highly paid jobs, but that makes little sense as well. Which would you rather do? Study or burger flip?
Obviously some would flip burgers, or else McDonald's would be out of business.

Besides which, it really does amuse me when people claim no one would ever bother trying to get a good job in socialism because they'd be taxed so much. Really? So because if I become a good doctor I "only" earn $100,000 a year as opposed to $200,000 a year, I say 'Ahh forget it! I might as well take a minimum wage job!' Just because they don't earn an INSANE amount of money which nobody would ever need anyway, does not mean they aren't still better off. The idea of socialism isn't to make everyone equal, but to make opportunity equal, reduce the gap between rich and poor and make sure nobody starves to death or dies of easily treated medical problems because they cannot afford to pay for it.

You don't understand, obviously. It's not that the doctor is paid more or less, it's that the doctors pay isn't resultant of how good a doctor he is. Thus, while he may become a doctor, he doesn't become as good a doctor as he would be if he were paid according to his skills as such.

Maybe everyone should take a step back and define socialism!

Then we could go on and look at some "socialist" places that have made it pretty well, just to get rid of the idea that "socialism doesn't work".

That's a tough thing to do, because socialism could mean a lot of different things depending upon the connotation. I was using "socialism" in the conventional sense, or as a hybridization between capitalism and communism, even though this is an incorrect usage of the term for a strict Marxist. A better term might be "mixed economic model".

But in that vein, the nations I was thinking of as being the most "socialistic" were the Nordic Countries: Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. All have far higher standards of medical care, all have that medical care paid for mostly by the government, and all of them have lower total sums paid for medical services than does the U.S. Better quality care at a lower price.

Regarding Hoover: His economics can hardly be said to have failed, as he was stuck in the middle of a global economic catastrophe. With twenty-twenty hindsight, we can see that an insular socioeconomic policy was doomed to failure, but we've all grown up in a global economy. If Roosevelt had had Hoover's term, we'd all scoff at New Deal Economics as blatantly wrongheaded. And as far as leaving people to fend for themselves, what about the Hoover Dam? It was the single greatest non-military expenditure in Congressional history, it employed thousands of workers at a time when the economy was collapsing, and it benefitted one of the poorest and most backward areas of the country with little or no help to the rich. Compared to the Hoover Dam, the TVA was a slick publicity stunt. (Actually, by any standards, the TVA was a slick publicity stunt.)

Regarding Health Care: It seems that what polarizes this debate so strongly is that people who argue for socialized medicine are in fact arguing from the more basic concern of social welfare, while people who believe in privatization argue from the concern of social justice. It could be completely temperamental on the part of the individual to favor one above the other, I don't know. However, I would imagine it would take something more intellectually substantive than an internet argument to make a person consititutionally suited to favor one switch sides. Particularly a debate in which the root causes are not addressed; i.e., is a fundamentally just society (one that provides according to capital, one with privatized medicine) that is perhaps unfair more desirable than a fundamentally fair one (one that takes care of its less fortunate, one with socialized medicine) that is perhaps unjust?

Regarding the Fairness/Justice split: I think the best use of our collective intelligence would be figuring out a way to maximize both the fairness and the justice in a society. My own personal tastes lead me to favor justice, so I would err on privatization. There's a million statistics that could support my prejudice, but there's also a million that could knock it down. But I don't see why my predilection should necessarily have to have the consequence of harming the poor. Can't mechanisms be put in place that keep society just, but at the same time protect those who cannot help their circumstances (children, the elderly, the physically or mentally handicapped)? I believe so, but few people are thinking along those lines right now. Dichotomies are ALWAYS profitable if you can figure out a way to exploit them. Hence, I chose option three. While it's pretty much non-explained in its current iteration, thinking along those lines can, I think, eventually find a solution* that will satisfy everyone.

*-one that immediately jumps to mind is tax breaks for those who contribute to charities that provide health care for the poor.

Healthcare is both a service AND a good. After all, people here credit the number of advances in medical technology to the free-market system in the US. Through funding health-care properly the technological advances can still be properly funded, and - as with the military providers - also then exported for aditional economic gain.
Okay, but the difference is that researchers in the healthcare industry, even when funded by the government, get paid based on their output, and thus are more driven to work hard. The doctor paid directly by the government is not.

And even under systems such as the Canadian one, most practicing doctors are NOT paid on salary. They are reimbursed scale rates for procedures. So a good doctor still can find themselves with more work - and hence more income - by building a reputation, or by specializing in higher-priced procedures. Those that elect to work directly for a hospital may, of course, just be salaried employees, but that sort of decision regarding career path is also true in the US right?
The thing is, after the doctor gets into said high-paying profession, his salary is almost wholly unrelated to his success.

Sometimes you have to think outside the box a little, but there ARE ways to set up a system that provides universal care within an environment that includes aspects of a free market. The fact that the bills all go to one place doesn't mean that there aren't ways to include consumer choice into the system.
Liiiiike, the third choice? Give it to those who actually need it for free, and allow for the wealthy to pay for better?

But in that vein, the nations I was thinking of as being the most "socialistic" were the Nordic Countries: Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.
And those countries are doing pretty well (or were at least).
So should we say that modern globalised society kills "socialism"?

The thing is, the investment banker worked to get to where he is by educating himself and using his talents to push himself forward, whereas the janitor smoked pot through highschool, dropped out, smoked some more pot, then went back to highschool to clean the shit out of the toilets. That, or he tried to be an investment banker and wasn't smart enough, which is his problem. ;)

Yes, it is easy to assume that all poor 'deserve it' and are either too lazy or too stupid to succeed. It has nothing to do with the fact that people start out with a different level of opportunities. After all, as we all know a middle class child is jus as likely to become working class as a working class child, right?


Obviously some would flip burgers, or else McDonald's would be out of business.

Or maybe some had no choice since their parents couldn't fun their way through college?



You don't understand, obviously. It's not that the doctor is paid more or less, it's that the doctors pay isn't resultant of how good a doctor he is. Thus, while he may become a doctor, he doesn't become as good a doctor as he would be if he were paid according to his skills as such.

That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that here in Britain a trainee doctor is paid the same as a senior brain surgeon? People still get promoted if they work well and pay increases as they are promoted. Therefore, doctors pay IS dependent on how good a doctor they are.

*-one that immediately jumps to mind is tax breaks for those who contribute to charities that provide health care for the poor.

They're called tax write-offs, and the U.S. has them already. For any charity.

Yes, it is easy to assume that all poor 'deserve it' and are either too lazy or too stupid to succeed. It has nothing to do with the fact that people start out with a different level of opportunities. After all, as we all know a middle class child is jus as likely to become working class as a working class child, right?
No, it doesn't have anything to do with that. Many people throughout history have started out dirt poor and become multimillionaires. They overcame economic strife, why can't the janitors today do the same? Because they are A.) too lazy, or B.) too stupid, as you so succinctly put it.

Or maybe some had no choice since their parents couldn't fun their way through college?
My parents can't afford my college. I'm paying on university and online scholarships, financial aid, etc.

That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that here in Britain a trainee doctor is paid the same as a senior brain surgeon? People still get promoted if they work well and pay increases as they are promoted. Therefore, doctors pay IS dependent on how good a doctor they are.

But the roof is much higher when you get paid on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, feel free to reply, I'm done, I'm watching Hostage now, probably a mistake to get off my comedy with minced war movie diet, but we'll see. :sniper:

Universal health care has been attempted twice in history in a real way:

1. The first ecumenical council in Constantinople.
2. Canada through the political pressure of Tommy Douglas (Keifer Sutherland's grandfather).

Both have worked outrageously well... we pay for it and we're proud of it.

You are ridiculous. You don't seem to reason out your thoughts very well.

Are you denying that the urban poor vote Democrat?

in point of fact the life expectancy of the average African-American male is significantly lower than that of his white or Asian counterpart.

I still don’t understand why I should have to pay for his medical bills. I didn’t make him smoke , do drugs, get involved in gang warfare or cause him to neglect his health so he gets heart disease.

Quick note:

Most provinces in Canada spend ~50% of their budgets on health care.

The province of Ontario projects it will spend ~80% of its budget on health care within ten years.

Private healthcare is (theoretically) illegal -- paying out of your own pocket for a privately-provided procedure (MRI, surgery, etc) is called "jumping the queue" and visciously attacked by proponents of Universal Health Care. The idea is that everyone should wait in the same queue.

Most surgical procedures have a waitlist of 12+ months; often 24+ months. People die waiting for organ transplants and other (relatively) easily-corrected procedures because after two years, the procedure is far less effective than it would have been if they could have had it in a timely fashion.

The federal government's solution to long waiting lists is "spend more money on Universal Health Care". Hence Ontario's 80% projection.

If you American folks want to drive out your best doctors; experience frequent strikes by nurses, doctors, and support staff that shut down hospitals and clinics; increase your states' budgets by 100%; increase wait times; radically decrease quality of service; and increase laws banning personal freedoms like smoking or other risky activities because "it will cost the Public Health System too much to allow you to take risks", all of which we experience on an increasing basis here in Canada...

...support Universal Health Care.

If you don't, but you still want to help the poor with their health care costs, why not find a charitable organisation that helps the poor with health care costs, or that provides free health care for the poor? I'm sure your local hospitals know of such a program that you can donate to or volunteer for. It means a whole lot more to people when you personally sacrifice, of your own free will, to help them.

/not rich
//spent 8 years as "working poor" with up to three children plus non-working wife.
///"middle-class" now; hate paying ridiculous taxes

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that. Many people throughout history have started out dirt poor and become multimillionaires. They overcame economic strife, why can't the janitors today do the same? Because they are A.) too lazy, or B.) too stupid, as you so succinctly put it.


Yes, and the reason they are noted for having done so is precisely because it is such an achievement. Of course it happens, but it is by no means the rule. The fact remains the poor are massively disadvantaged. For example, if a woman wins a boxing match against a man, are we to say 'This means women are just as physically able to box as men - we should always make them compete against one another. If the woman loose 99% of the time, it's just plain due to laziness when training'

The fact is, it is rarer for a middle class child to struggle in life than a working class child, suggesting disadvantage.

I mean, just look at George Bush. I know a lot of people go on about how stupid he is and he might not be as dumb as everyone makes out, but do you really think he would have become president if he'd being born to some underprivilaged family, with no parents to 'contribute' to Yale and thus see him through it? No - he'd probably be a burger flipper himself.

Didn't we have this conversation last week?

I still don’t understand why I should have to pay for his medical bills. I didn’t make him smoke , do drugs, get involved in gang warfare or cause him to neglect his health so he gets heart disease.

If for no other reason than because people who live longer and healthier spend more and work more, thus improving the economy more than people who die early from preventable causes. Ergo, it is in your economic benefit to have a healthier society.

The shorter answer is because it is the right thing to do.

If for no other reason than because people who live longer and healthier spend more and work more, thus improving the economy more than people who die early from preventable causes. Ergo, it is in your economic benefit to have a healthier society.

Problem with that argument is that that segment of the populations don’t work, and many are involved in illegal activities. Ergo, it hurts me to have an even greater drain on the economy.

The shorter answer is because it is the right thing to do.

I find willingly donating to charity and volunteering my time to be far superior than being forced to give up my money. It isn’t doing the right thing then. It is simply robbery by the government.

I find willingly donating to charity and volunteering my time to be far superior than being forced to give up my money. It isn’t doing the right thing then. It is simply robbery by the government.

So if no one was going to help a man dying in the gutter unless they were forced to then it would be far better to let the man die?

Meh, I don't understand people some time. One side always says how communism can never work cause people are greedy and lazy etc, which is true, but then seem to think that without taxes they would the shining light of humanity and donate loads of money to charity.

I was replying to the part where I believed you misrepresented utilitarianism. The reason survival is important is because you need to live to experience happiness. And I don't think most people "want all Americans dead". If they do, it tends to be because they think America has a materialistic, commerical society that it's unfairly exporting to other nations.

So, do you think that 70 years ago most Germans did not actually want all the Jews dead? Or did they do only because the Jews were too materialistic and commerical?! Look, it's a simple fact that 90% of Russians, 95% of Chinese, 100% of Arabs etc. want all Americans dead. Just because of who we are, not because of what we do. You better learn some lessons of the Holocaust. The most basic of which is that when some people persistently say they want to kill you, you better believe them.

So if no one was going to help a man dying in the gutter unless they were forced to then it would be far better to let the man die?

I guarantee the man will get much better treatment from the people helping him, if they did it willingly than if they are forced.

Meh, I don't understand people some time. One side always says how communism can never work cause people are greedy and lazy etc, which is true, but then seem to think that without taxes they would the shining light of humanity and donate loads of money to charity.

People are not absolutely greedy beyond redemption, just greedy by nature. This greed often has innocent roots, like trying to acquire wealth to give their kids a better life than they had. The fact is, the more money people have available, the more money they will feel compelled to donate. Just look at Bill Gates, J.D Rockefeller and almost every other rich guy in American history.

Problem with that argument is that that segment of the populations don’t work, and many are involved in illegal activities. Ergo, it hurts me to have an even greater drain on the economy.

*Sigh*

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. When you can stop postulating something other than the myth of the welfare queen, please feel free to continue. For now, it might help if you familiarize yourself with FBI crime statistics. There is no "that segment" of the population: more or less any person pressed hard enough to survive will resort to crime, and the fact that crime cycles and economic cycles closely coincide bears this out. People go into legitemate business when they have an opportunity to do so during boom years, and turn to criminal activity when there is no other way to make a living during bust years. Furthermore, the largest cause of prosecution and incarceration in America isn't violent or even property crime: it's drug possession, usually for small amounts of marihuana. You would be hard pressed to explain to me why it is that someone who tokes up to deal with the fact that he can't find work is somehow a "drain" on the economy, unless you want to continue your tour through blatant racial stereotypes by invoking reefer madness.


I find willingly donating to charity and volunteering my time to be far superior than being forced to give up my money. It isn’t doing the right thing then. It is simply robbery by the government.

No, it isn't. It is the costs that you legitemately incur as a result of being a willing partner in society and gaining the benefits thereof.

You see, to be a robber, two things have to transpire. One, property must be forcibly transferred from one party to another. Two, the intent of the person forcing the transaction must be one of self-interest. The second is included primarily because even if a person does not actually manage to take anything (i.e. a botched robbery), we would still call him a robber if in fact he intended to take something from another person to benefit himself. Moreover, if someone actually took something from you with the intent other than one of self-interest, you would hardly call it robbery (e.g. you wouldn't say someone who pulls a glass of sour milk out of your hands is "robbing" you of your milk, but rather he is doing you a favor).

Government taxation only has one aspect, but not both. Yes, it does forcibly take part of your property, but it does so with the desire to benefit you and everyone else by providing services. So government taxation is not robbery, or perhaps better put, the day you can legitemately call taxation robbery is the day when robbers start using the money they get from stealing to benefit you, such as stealing your Rolex to pay for influenza shots from your children. Until they start doing that, taxation and robbery are two very different things.

[QUOTE=Artanias]I've lived in Canada for a while where they claim to have free health care. When I was there in Ontario, the taxes were ridiculously high, because universal health care is expensive, and taxes were roughly 51 percent.........


I am a Canadian from Ontario and most Canadians are very proud of our health care. Many see it as a primary difference between us and the U.S. However, the stuff you said isn't far off the mark. Taxes are high, and be prepared to wait hours in a hospital emergency room. I broke my arm and I waited six hours for someone to look at me! Until recently, it has been illegal to even seek out private care in Canada but a court ruling in Quebec is starting to change that. I'm nervous at the prospect of two-tiered health care (public and private side by side) but maybe if those who can afford private get out of the emergency room line-up, those who can't will have shorter wait times. But I don't know! It's such a big part of our national identity that I would hate to see it go. :confused: I am another Canadian from Ontario and you have a good point, but are we going to allow pride in universal health care system, misplaced pride at that, prevent us from allowing some breathing room for wait times to those who can afford it. We seem to be suffering from a special type of blindness,PRIVATE HEALTHCARE IS ALREADY HERE,just not acknowledged for the most part and with the Quebec ruling it is going to get easier to get, ''I Hope''. Are we afraid that that once the floodgates are opened the big ,bad, HMO'S from the U.S. are going to invade us? :confused: That we will have one less difference from our neighbor to the south. It is fear in my opinion that prevents us from moving quicker to a universal two- tier system, if that isn't a contradiction in terms?

I should not be subjegated by a piss-poor 'healthcare' system that tears at my throat in taxes under the guise of being free. I don't find much to enjoy in the prospects of sitting on a waiting list for months on end to get a surgery I may be in dire need of due to a shoddy, ineffective system ran by socialistic government whores who see themselves as new-age Robin Hoods. No thanks for the offer, either, as I do not care for an expansion to our already bloated government.

Vote socialism, all the way. It's an issue of basic morals. Under the second option a large segment of the population would be left to become ill (unproductive) or die because they cannot afford adequate health care. Murder by neglect, really.

I have never been able to understand the capitalist/libertarian viewpoint where 'the poor' are uniformly branded as too lazy to become productive citizens, and thus are a drain on society. There is no 'the poor', just a lot of individual people living in poverty, each due to a number of contributing factors.

Sure, some poor people are lazy and happy to live on welfare. I'm sure they exist. But I would suspect that most people living on the povery line *are* actually working, for exploitative companies who pay as small a wage as they can possibly get away with. Many of these people provide vital services, such as child care, public school teaching, and yes, your janitor. Who's going to clean up the poo if all the janitors suddenly quit one day and become investment bankers?

Without exactly the same access to quality education as the children of the middle class, children living in poverty become adults who cannot 'work harder' in better-paying jobs because they have not been given the opportunity to better themselves through education. To dismiss them as a drain on society and to deny them access to health care because they were not given the same opportunity to better themselves is morally corrupt.

And yes, there are people who work their way up from the working class and join the middle classes. I'm one of them. But if I hadn't had access to (subsidised - not free) university, I wouldn't be earning as much as I am now. Taxpayers gave to me so that I could improve my lot, and I'm happy to give part of my salary back to society so that it can improve the lot of others.

So, do you think that 70 years ago most Germans did not actually want all the Jews dead? Or did they do only because the Jews were too materialistic and commerical?! Look, it's a simple fact that 90% of Russians, 95% of Chinese, 100% of Arabs etc. want all Americans dead. Just because of who we are, not because of what we do. You better learn some lessons of the Holocaust. The most basic of which is that when some people persistently say they want to kill you, you better believe them.

Well, seeing as how the Nazi party didn't even get half of the votes when it came to power, no I don't think all or most of them wanted every Jew dead. Furthermore, most of the appeal of Nazism came from it's promise to solve economic depression, and I would say most Germans didn't realize that they were actually killing 6 million jews.

And point me to any facts that say 90% of Russians (?), 95% of Chinese, and 100% of Arabs (!) want every single American mercilessly and genocidally dead. Not because of economic reasons, not because of our support for taiwan, not because we support Israel with loads of military aid, but because we happen to live in a place spelled a-m-e-r-i-c-a and we like rap and country (or we look funny or any other ludicrous reason that has nothing to do with the actions we or our government takes).

That is simply preposterous.

This is what I mean by people saying that the rich are ALWAYS better people, have 'worked their assess off' and thus deserve to be treated better. Please. Whilst it might be true in some circumstances, generally lower paid work is harder than highly paid work - regardless of pay, which would you honestly prefer to do as your job? Janitor or Investment Banker? I know i'd rather go for Investment banker - it's probably a more rewarding and less monotomous job than burger flipping

You could then argue that you have to work really hard in education to get highly paid jobs, but that makes little sense as well. Which would you rather do? Study or burger flip?

Besides which, it really does amuse me when people claim no one would ever bother trying to get a good job in socialism because they'd be taxed so much. Really? So because if I become a good doctor I "only" earn $100,000 a year as opposed to $200,000 a year, I say 'Ahh forget it! I might as well take a minimum wage job!' Just because they don't earn an INSANE amount of money which nobody would ever need anyway, does not mean they aren't still better off. The idea of socialism isn't to make everyone equal, but to make opportunity equal, reduce the gap between rich and poor and make sure nobody starves to death or dies of easily treated medical problems because they cannot afford to pay for it.

Ah, I'm beginning to suspect that you've never actually worked in your life. At least for a living (vs. for pocket change). And I'll bet you think the main personal income tax form in the US is 1040 (while in fact the government would not even notice if nobody filed it next year - everybody who actually pays taxes files 6251). I've never worked as either janitor or investment banker, but if compensation was equal, I'd probably choose to be a janitor - shorter hours, a lot less stress and responsibility etc. At my current science job (in ideal conditions - I work from home) I may sometimes get very tired in just half hour of work (to the point where I absolutely can't continue without a long break). That never happened to me when I was a part-time delivery driver back in grad school. Furthermore, taxes do matter a lot. I actually started working (and presumably producing) more and taking less vacation time after the Bush tax cuts. I also started investing more. And to a considerable extent my life is driven by tax avoidance strategies. Finally, I once gave a brief thought to going to medical school. Did not feel motivated enough - lacked real interest in the profession. If doctors' net income had been twice higher, I might have decided differently though. Conversely, if they get halved (something the government can accomplish instantly), it is very safe to assume that a lot of bright young people will not choose that profession.

Quick note:

Most provinces in Canada spend ~50% of their budgets on health care.

The province of Ontario projects it will spend ~80% of its budget on health care within ten years.

Private healthcare is (theoretically) illegal -- paying out of your own pocket for a privately-provided procedure (MRI, surgery, etc) is called "jumping the queue" and visciously attacked by proponents of Universal Health Care. The idea is that everyone should wait in the same queue.

Most surgical procedures have a waitlist of 12+ months; often 24+ months. People die waiting for organ transplants and other (relatively) easily-corrected procedures because after two years, the procedure is far less effective than it would have been if they could have had it in a timely fashion.

The federal government's solution to long waiting lists is "spend more money on Universal Health Care". Hence Ontario's 80% projection.

If you American folks want to drive out your best doctors; experience frequent strikes by nurses, doctors, and support staff that shut down hospitals and clinics; increase your states' budgets by 100%; increase wait times; radically decrease quality of service; and increase laws banning personal freedoms like smoking or other risky activities because "it will cost the Public Health System too much to allow you to take risks", all of which we experience on an increasing basis here in Canada...

...support Universal Health Care.

If you don't, but you still want to help the poor with their health care costs, why not find a charitable organisation that helps the poor with health care costs, or that provides free health care for the poor? I'm sure your local hospitals know of such a program that you can donate to or volunteer for. It means a whole lot more to people when you personally sacrifice, of your own free will, to help them.

/not rich
//spent 8 years as "working poor" with up to three children plus non-working wife.
///"middle-class" now; hate paying ridiculous taxes

Perhaps if the unions working in hospitals didn't force the taxpayer to pay $18.00 an hour to highschool dropouts to wash dishes with zero training (how much training do you need?) and many many more egregious breaches of fiscal sense, we would have more tax dollars to spend on keeping wards open. And yes, they do. I work with a guy who makes that sort of money as a side job washing dishes in a hospital.

You would be hard pressed to explain to me why it is that someone who tokes up to deal with the fact that he can't find work is somehow a "drain" on the economy,

Well, when someone “tokes up” they can’t work and go find another job. Besides, the marijuana laws are the result of the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, anyway.

Yes, it does forcibly take part of your property, but it does so with the desire to benefit you and everyone else by providing services

You are naïve aren’t you? Governments give people these “services” to make the people dependant on them so that they can increase their power and so individual politicians can stay in office.

I'd say Progressive. Of course it may not be fair to the rich but consider the fact that poor people are generally much more disadvantaged. The charge for the rich can be considered charity because with that money, the quality of healthcare rises allowing better care for all people.

I mean, just look at George Bush. I know a lot of people go on about how stupid he is and he might not be as dumb as everyone makes out, but do you really think he would have become president if he'd being born to some underprivilaged family, with no parents to 'contribute' to Yale and thus see him through it? No - he'd probably be a burger flipper himself.

Considering that he's smarter that 95% of the population (according to his officer candidate tests), he'd graduate from some good university anyway. As for him becoming president, his father was one of the main obstacles. I actually voted in the famous SC primary in 2000 (just for the record, the week before the primary I was still planning to vote against Bush and switched my vote only at the last moment) and I happen to remember how back in 1999 people knew very little about W. and his support among the Republican base was greatly depressed by his father's tremendous unpopularity within the said base (Clinton was about the only politician whom conservative Republicans hated even more than George H.W. Bush in the 1990s - with his "kindler, gentler nation" remark, "read my lips" fiasco etc.; just for the record I have a much kinder view of old H.W.). So only total lack of any other serious candidate in the Republican primaries saved W's skin.

On a more general note, your lack of faith in people is amazing. And quite insulting to those of us who were born "underprivileged" and achieved something through our own efforts.

There is no "that segment" of the population: more or less any person pressed hard enough to survive will resort to crime,

That's nonsense. Only evil people commit crime. Out of their own free choice to do evil.

This whole issue is the direct result of people thinking everyone is not connected. Taking care of only yourself and saying, in effect, "screw everybody else" is the mentality that causes terrorism and war.

People who take this view have a remarkable ability to notice how everyone else in the world "owes them" for this and that, while at the same time being blind to all the ways that they owe the rest of the world.

Unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners you are contributing nowhere near as many tax dollars as you are using up with daily living. So stop being so bloody selfish. Nobody should have to hold a gun to your head to make you willing to help out your fellow man. It sickens me listening to selfish BS like this.

This society is like a snake eating its own tail.

The way I see it there are three options and heres the arguments:

1. Universal health care for all: A civilization society will provide the basic requirments for all its citizens and one of those is universal health care. It is wrong to not provide for lesser off people when we can help them. It is the measure of a people of how they treat there worse off citizens. Everyone should recieve equal health care.

2. Captialist system(is that what you call it): If you can pay for a higher quality of health care you should. Allowing docters to be paid for their quality of service is a given if you want quality. If the government runs health care there would be no competition and it would be run ineffienctly. If you don't contribute to society why should you gets its benefits?

3. Centerist approach: The poor should recieve free healthcare, the rich do not. Allowing for competition between doctors and higher service quality.

Personally I am for option 3 but I could be wrong lets see. Please be civil, my last post kinda deteriated...

1. Red Cross
2. U.S.A.
3. WTF? The rich work hard for their money just like the poor, why should the rich pay more? Civil Rights!!!

I think doctors should have ethics rather then money as a prioraty.

Socialist/Centrish/Borderline....What ever you call it for me... 'Free' (Tax Money) medical care for CITIZENS by trained, professional and ethical doctors with only your wellfare on their minds and a passion to do their best every time instead of greedy snob stuck up bastard doctors that dont have a human soul in their lifeless bodys.

Universal healthcare is bad because:

1. It requires massive government spending, thus higher taxes.
2. It begins a slide towards a socialist state.

Well, seeing as how the Nazi party didn't even get half of the votes when it came to power, no I don't think all or most of them wanted every Jew dead. Furthermore, most of the appeal of Nazism came from it's promise to solve economic depression, and I would say most Germans didn't realize that they were actually killing 6 million jews.

And point me to any facts that say 90% of Russians (?), 95% of Chinese, and 100% of Arabs (!) want every single American mercilessly and genocidally dead. Not because of economic reasons, not because of our support for taiwan, not because we support Israel with loads of military aid, but because we happen to live in a place spelled a-m-e-r-i-c-a and we like rap and country (or we look funny or any other ludicrous reason that has nothing to do with the actions we or our government takes).

That is simply preposterous.

Yeah, right, nobody in Germany actually wanted to murder Jews - it just happened. Read "Hitler's willing executioners". As for the rest of it, do you speak Russian? Have you ever talked to a live Russian? Have you ever read Russian newspapers and Internet discussions? No? I can answer yes on all counts. And I know that they thoroughly hate us. They strongly believe they are the greatest people who have ever lived on Earth and by divine right should be the greatest in everything. Well, our very existence challenges that worldview, and they sincerely want us all dead. Just watch how they celebrated on 9/11. In fact they started celebrating while two out of four hijacked planes were still in the air (and the Pentagon was still intact). All of the above also applies to the Chinese and the Arabs (who are both very similar to the Russians in their mentality).

This whole issue is the direct result of people thinking everyone is not connected. Taking care of only yourself and saying, in effect, "screw everybody else" is the mentality that causes terrorism and war.

If you actually believe it, I may be inclined to pay for YOUR mental care.

Unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners you are contributing nowhere near as many tax dollars as you are using up with daily living.

Really? And the source for this claim is ...? I'm not anywhere near 1%, yet I pay much more in Social Security taxes than my parents get in their combined Social Security checks. I am very willing to support them (and in fact have done that for years), but no, the government insists on doing something for us that we can perfectly do for ourselves and charges an exorbitant fee for doing that. Overall, on average I pay over $100 in various taxes every day. And how many tax dollars do you think I use up with daily living?! Seriously, where did you get your math?! The government on all levels spends perhaps $10-12K per every US resident per year. The top 1% of wage earners pay at least $100K in taxes per year (and that's a very low estimate - perhaps $150K would be more correct).

Yeah, right, nobody in Germany actually wanted to murder Jews - it just happened. Read "Hitler's willing executioners". As for the rest of it, do you speak Russian? Have you ever talked to a live Russian? Have you ever read Russian newspapers and Internet discussions? No? I can answer yes on all counts. And I know that they thoroughly hate us. They strongly believe they are the greatest people who have ever lived on Earth and by divine right should be the greatest in everything. Well, our very existence challenges that worldview, and they sincerely want us all dead. Just watch how they celebrated on 9/11. In fact they started celebrating while two out of four hijacked planes were still in the air (and the Pentagon was still intact). All of the above also applies to the Chinese and the Arabs (who are both very similar to the Russians in their mentality).

Did I say nobody? No, because I don't use such broad terms, like you seem to throw around. Obviously most of the people in the government (the ones who were involved in the actual discrimination and genocide) wanted them dead. And many of the regular citizens hated them. This does not mean that they all wanted every single Jew completely exterminated.

Yes I have read Russian newspapers and discussion boards. Many of them hate bush. This does not equal an unquenchable lust for the death of every American on earth. So some of them celebrated...was it some or was it 130 million of them, as would be required by your "facts". And even if they did celebrate, maybe some of them just thought America should be taught that it isn't infallibe by some kind of tragedy (an insensitive opinion, perhaps)...Not that every single American in the goddamn universe deserves to be ruthlessly murdered.

Your generalizations are nothing but brash ignorance or flamebait. They are unabashedly racist in their depiction of arabs. They do not warrant further comment.

That's nonsense. Only evil people commit crime. Out of their own free choice to do evil.
Well, that's a big load of crap. Who taught you that?

You are naïve aren’t you? Governments give people these “services” to make the people dependant on them so that they can increase their power and so individual politicians can stay in office.
And how does that work?
I think you just have some sort of ideological issue at the very core of all this, and all your arguments are really just manifestations of that. You look at facts you want to look at, and ignore others. There's gotta be a middle way here.
And a question: Could you afford a good doctor, or bypass surgery right now? Do you have the money to buy a private health insurance?

Yes I have read Russian newspapers and discussion boards. Many of them hate bush.

They actually hate Americans. Look, how many Russians actually living in Russia have you ever known?! Among other things, there were decades of intense anti-American propaganda. I knew people who had never met an American, knew next to nothing about America yet hated America intensely. And you can't even imagine intensity of brainwashing in the Soviet Army (where virtually all 18 year old men had to serve). Even well educated people are not immune - and I get reminders almost every day.

As for the Arabs, can you with a straight face say that they are sane rational people? If you can, don't waste your talents - go into comedy. Or politics. Or used car sales.

Well, that's a big load of crap. Who taught you that?

Common sense. Do you mean to suggest that GOOD people commit crimes? Or that people do not have capacity to choose good or evil?


And how does that work?

Just get any good book on totalitarianism. The Commies ruled Russia for over 70 years precisely because they managed to make the entire population very dependent on the government. "Free" health care and "free" education were among their most important tools.

1. I think comments like "the Arabs are not sane and rational people" should be enough to get you banned. If you ask me, you can proclaim such bullshit on some fundamentalist genocidal website, but not here.

2. I suggest there is no such things as "GOOD people". If you use absolutes to back up your argument you have already lost.
And the idea that you wouldn't steal to save yourself because you're GOOD is laughable.

3. Hehe, I say you get out ye olde history book and read up "Communism", "the USSR" as well as "NKVD". Then we'll talk again.

reallly? And the source for this claim is ...? I'm not anywhere near 1%, yet I pay much more in Social Security taxes than my parents get in their combined Social Security checks. I am very willing to support them (and in fact have done that for years), but no, the government insists on doing something for us that we can perfectly do for ourselves and charges an exorbitant fee for doing that. Overall, on average I pay over $100 in various taxes every day. And how many tax dollars do you think I use up with daily living?! Seriously, where did you get your math?! The government on all levels spends perhaps $10-12K per every US resident per year. The top 1% of wage earners pay at least $100K in taxes per year (and that's a very low estimate - perhaps $150K would be more correct).

http://www.backlash.com/content/unions/
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.shtml

The top 1% of income earners pays a third of the country's total income tax burden. The top 10% of income earners pays two thirds of the country's total tax burden.

Do you stop to consider what it costs to maintain the roads you drive on and all the rest of the infrastructure that allows you to blithely live your life? I think maybe you haven't any idea how much you owe to the society you are a part of.

You state that you are perfectly able to support your parents (how nice for you, you are clearly an upper income earner if you are, as you claim, paying $36,500 a year in taxes), but how does the fact that you are lucky enough so to be able mean that those who are not so lucky should not get the benefit of health care?

By your own admission, the top 1% of wage earners pay 10 to 15 times their share. Do the math. That entails that Average Joe is not paying anywhere near what he is actually using up. These are not difficult concepts...just like "sharing" and "giving a hand up to those less fortunate than you" are not difficult concepts. Many of us learned them in kindergarten.

Only because of the unavoidable and inevitable economic collapse. Hoover’s policies did no lead to the great depression. His administration was a casualty of the people blaming the government for all their problems. The New Deal was a temporary fix, and we are now seeing how ineffective it is with the Social Security mess the US is now in.
I never posted that. You misquoted me.

1. I think comments like "the Arabs are not sane and rational people" should be enough to get you banned. If you ask me, you can proclaim such bullshit on some fundamentalist genocidal website, but not here.

2. I suggest there is no such things as "GOOD people". If you use absolutes to back up your argument you have already lost.
And the idea that you wouldn't steal to save yourself because you're GOOD is laughable.

3. Hehe, I say you get out ye olde history book and read up "Communism", "the USSR" as well as "NKVD". Then we'll talk again.

1. My comment about the Arabs should not be controversial to anyone with even the most casual acquaintance with the the Arab media, opinions etc. Seriously, just check out the conspiracy theories that are widely believed in the Arab world.

2. I would definitely not steal to save myself. Because I would certainly not be saving myself by committing a mortal sin.

3. I KNOW how the Soviet system operated. I have firsthand knowledge of why people behaved the way they did. Do you? If KGB had been disbanded after Stalin's death, it would not have made much of a difference because people's dependence on the government was still there.

Do you stop to consider what it costs to maintain the roads you drive on and all the rest of the infrastructure that allows you to blithely live your life?

Not much. They don't maintain them all that well around here. Besides, I drive about once a week. All my property taxes and gas taxes amount to at least five grand a year. I get nowhere nearly this value in road maintanence.

I think maybe you haven't any idea how much you owe to the society you are a part of.

And that is just how much?

You state that you are perfectly able to support your parents (how nice for you, you are clearly an upper income earner if you are, as you claim, paying $36,500 a year in taxes),

Perhaps more. I'm just guesstimating sales taxes and all special taxes (like Gore tax on my phones). Also, don't forget that SS+Medicare tax is actually 15.3% - the government is lying when it says it's only half that much. Before the Bush tax cut my marginal tax rate was actually over 50% (federal + state + SS + Medicare) and even after that it became just slightly lower. And that's before property, sales and other taxes. So it's not that hard to rake up a lot of taxes. Especially when you are single and don't have children.

but how does the fact that you are lucky enough

It has nothing to do with luck. I did not win the lottery. In fact I never played the lottery (if I were inclined to gamble, I'd rather do it in a mob-controlled casino than in a state-run lottery because the former offer much better odds and payouts and would probably put the money lost by me to better use).

so to be able mean that those who are not so lucky should not get the benefit of health care?

Have you ever heard about charity? Besides, not much luck is required to stay in school, away from drugs and jail etc. and then to get an honest job and perform it well.

By your own admission, the top 1% of wage earners pay 10 to 15 times their share. Do the math. That entails that Average Joe is not paying anywhere near what he is actually using up. These are not difficult concepts...just like "sharing" and "giving a hand up to those less fortunate than you" are not difficult concepts. Many of us learned them in kindergarten.

You were saying that ALL of us not in that 1% are not paying our share. That's what I was arguing with. I was not talking about Average Joe who indeed "is not paying anywhere near what he is actually using up" - and that's why he keeps voting for ever expanding government. My problem not just with income redistribution - it's with its ineffectiveness. A lot of wealth simply gets destroyed in the process. Besides two trillion dollars being collected in federal taxes, another trillion or so gets destroyed in the process. Sharing is a very familiar concept to me - but somehow it never associated with the government in my mind. I associate the government with totally different things - like national security, you know, law and order etc. And once again, taking a typical example of what we are talking about, when a 14 y.o. girl has consensual sex and has a baby (then goes on welfare), "less fortunate" are not exactly the words that first come to my mind. It's rather words like immoral, sinful, lascivious, irresponsible, selfish, undisciplined, spoiled, anti-social, etc. I actually am willing to give her some of my money. But only if she begs for it in front of a church. No, I don't care about her self-esteem, shame and humiliation. Well, on the second thought I do - I actually want her to serve as an example to other girls. Like "you behave in certain ways - you'll suffer public shame and humiliation". And I'm not even speaking in moral terms here (although without morals society can not long survive). I'm talking just about pragmatic public policy. Considering all the social costs of illegitimacy (including the uninsured that concern you so much), society actually has considerable interest in discouraging it.