NationStates Jolt Archive

This will probably do better than my last thread of getting the point across. Please say who you think should own the means of healthcare, and who should pay.
Edit: To avoid confusion, the American model is a different system unlike the world has ever seen. For the most part, healthcare is in private hands, and is funded privately. However, there is some nationalized healthcare, as well as hospitals owned by individual states, cities, and communities. In addition, public funding is available for senior citizens, veterans, and the extremely poor. Each are administered by different bureaocracies.

Completely privatized.

I’d rather a few have a lot, most have some, and a bit have little, than all to have little.

Healthcare should not be free for everyone. Universal healthcare drives away competition and the quality of healthcare.

Should the government help those who cannot afford healthcare? Yes, somewhat, with regards to taxpayer's money.

Healthcare should not be free for everyone. Universal healthcare drives away competition and the quality of healthcare.

Should the government help those who cannot afford healthcare? Yes, somewhat, with regards to taxpayer's money.
I'm not exactly critisiziing you, but I do want to know whom you think the government must pay to.

I'm not exactly critisiziing you, but I do want to know whom you think the government must pay to.

The lower class, quite obviously. They shouldn't pay for all of it, but they should help.

The lower class, quite obviously. They shouldn't pay for all of it, but they should help.
Fair enough. Now can I rip you apart?

If you have to ask, something is horribly awry.

I'm pretty satisfied with the American model-it could use some streamlining, a little more privatization, but other than that...it's working. Healthcare's worst enemy is Hillary Clinton's satanic nationalization plan from the 90s.

I'm pretty satisfied with the American model-it could use some streamlining, a little more privatization, but other than that...it's working. Healthcare's worst enemy is Hillary Clinton's satanic nationalization plan from the 90s.
Well, it failed, and that was before a friendly House. Despite the great enlargement of Medicare, I highly doubt that we will ever see anything on the scale of what she wanted. State's righters and liberatarian groups will come outta the woodwork to oppose it, and opposing it will look good for any pollitician, save for the socialist Democrats and a few seats addicted to Big Labor.

It is in the interests of those who can afford health care to ensure those who cannot, do recieve some health care. It is in the interests of society generally in fact to ensure that a range of health care needs (within the community) are met.

Insurance is not going to work out (market failure), so clearly the government will need to take some role in providing health care. The most efficient method, is probably for the government to take a direct role in owning and providing health care services.

I think PJ said it well:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." – P.J. O'Rourke

Now, my personal beliefs, if anyone wishes to hear them. Man is entitled to the fruits of his ability, labor, and resources, and may dispose of them as he wishes. This applies to every sector of the economy with the exception of government (I can talk about that later). Healthcare is no exception. He may choose whom to treat, how to treat them, and what, if any, compensation he shall recieve. He is also entitled to the fruits of his advances in medicine and health, by recieving a temporary monopoly on a product. Furthermore, he must recieve a pernament monopoly on any books or essays he's penned in the name of medicine, and must be given credit for his work forever.
The government is the only organization that can create a monopoly that will last, because it is backed by brute force. Defy the government, you get penalized, and there is nothing you can do about it. But the government itself is a monopoly, and two companies in a nationalized industry cannot compete. Without the main engine of innovation, the system is stagnant.
It is likewise in the world of financing. It is dangerous to society, as the government, being a monopoly, cannot provide choice, creating an inefficient private healthcare sector. And by allowing private companies acess to virtually unlimited capital, price gouging, and ultimately distortions, may occur, and a consumer can do little about that.
It is also immoral. It is not right for the many to compensate the few without every individual's consent. Furthermore, as I have mentioned, it makes the sector stagnant. If no taxes went to supporting healthcare, perhaps more people can afford it entirely on their own dime? Furthermore, for those that can't afford it on their own, HMOs will be locked in a price war attracting new customers, probably resulting in consolidation where the low premiums are enough. In addition, as doctors, hospitals, and clinics are less dependent on limitless government funds that are easy to get, they will be cautious to preserve what they can get, mainly by deserving it.
The world is in a healthcare crisis. Most countries have no adequate healthcare. Some, like France and Canada, are near collapse. Some, like Britain, have one that toils away under bureaocracy. The US has one a bit more competitive, and has arguably the best healthcare in the world. The problem is that no one can afford it, due to regulation, excess liquidity, and half-hearted compromises where the US is unwilling to commit to anything. Did I mentiion bureaocracy? It's time for that to change. Liberate the healthcare sector, and the sector will do more to liberate you from nature.

Oh, and if you want my rant in layman's terms, just remember this: no government involvement because it is immoral.

Lotus Puppy, your comments contain some very questionable assumptions. Why is an individual entitled to the fruits of their labour, unless they achieved such fruits and labour without any aid or help whatsoever?

It is not true that a private health care industry cannot co-exist with agovernment owned and provided health care industry. Nor is it true that government involvement removes all choice. I am not convinced of the claim about stagnation either.

Why is it not right for the many to subsidise the few? What if the many have also recieved tangible benefits from social cooperation and pooling of resources? Further why should the many be placed at greater risk than need be because the few cannot afford, when it is cheaper and safer for everyone to simply provide the few with what they need to not present a risk to others?

I doubt very much that if health care were only able to be purchased on the free market, by those that could afford it, that more people would be able to afford health care to an extent that any benefit derived from this would equal the costs of having all those who cannot afford going without.

Why is it not right for the many to subsidise the few?
I know you're not talking to me, and I know this bit was taken slightly out of context [though I think I understand the points you're trying to challenge], but how can you actually say this? Since when is right and wrong a matter of numbers?!

Fair enough. Now can I rip you apart?

For.....?

I'm as capitalist as they come, I just think that the government needs to help those who want to help themselves get back on track.

I know you're not talking to me, and I know this bit was taken slightly out of context [though I think I understand the points you're trying to challenge], but how can you actually say this? Since when is right and wrong a matter of numbers?!
I can say that, because I question the reasoning behind the assumption that it is never fair that the many subsidise the few. The numbers are so far as I can tell not really the point of my question. I am seeking justification for the premise "it is unfair for the many to have to subsidise the few", but not because the relative numbers (ie many as opposed to few) cause me to wonder what the justification is, but rather because I wish to know what axioms or premises led the poster to the conclusion that "some subsidises others = is unfair".

For.....?

I'm as capitalist as they come, I just think that the government needs to help those who want to help themselves get back on track.
I'll wager $1 million you're not as capitalist as me ;)

I'll wager $1 million you're not as capitalist as me ;)

I dunno. Maybe not. I don't understand economics too well, but I understand enough that commuism/ socialism will never work. Regulated Capitalism is the only system that doesn't result in utter failure.

BTW, where did you score on the economic axis of the political compass?

Lotus Puppy, your comments contain some very questionable assumptions. Why is an individual entitled to the fruits of their labour, unless they achieved such fruits and labour without any aid or help whatsoever?
Even if it wasn't created, this person has a right to his talent, and used it as such. If he needed resources from outside, then it is his obligation to offer them compensation. Many people can do it. The government can't, as they are the only people that actively steal intellectual fruits and can get away with it.
It is not true that a private health care industry cannot co-exist with agovernment owned and provided health care industry. Nor is it true that government involvement removes all choice. I am not convinced of the claim about stagnation either.

Simple tyranny of the numbers. Take my one uncle, hospitalized for a stroke. He is a veteran, and thus entitled to free healthcare. Is he gonna use it? No. He has choices that are better. You pay for what you get. If you pay nothing, you get what I think the VA offers: nothing. As people have a choice, they will abandon public clinics. That is why doctors are moving from Canada to the US in droves, and why VA hospitals are closing down. The only option is total nationalization, which is why I find it to stagnate. Competition begets innovation, right?
Why is it not right for the many to subsidise the few?
As Melkor said, numbers are tyranny. Many societies have achieved true equality. All of them end up poor and with no rights. To paraphrase Rousseau, all people must give up all rights for true equality.
I doubt very much that if health care were only able to be purchased on the free market, by those that could afford it, that more people would be able to afford health care to an extent that any benefit derived from this would equal the costs of having all those who cannot afford going without.
You doubt it because yu refuse to question what you got now. I doubt the opposite, but because I see it, and it serves everyone poorly. But at least it's equality, right?

For.....?

I'm as capitalist as they come, I just think that the government needs to help those who want to help themselves get back on track.
I'm more capitalist than you are, I bet. Government compensation of the poor creates the poor while destroying anyone financially better off. But don't worry, my capitallist friend. You're mostly good. You just need more help seeing the light :) .

I can say that, because I question the reasoning behind the assumption that it is never fair that the many subsidise the few.
It isn't. At least, if by 'subsidize' you mean 'redistribute the labor of,' which is really the only definition I can think of. I'm probably the best one here to describe this reasoning, and I suspect I shall soon be forced to.

The numbers are so far as I can tell not really the point of my question. I am seeking justification for the premise "it is unfair for the many to have to subsidise the few", but not because the relative numbers (ie many as opposed to few) cause me to wonder what the justification is, but rather because I wish to know what axioms or premises led the poster to the conclusion that some subsidises others is unfair.
Well we can generally assume that people aren't happy with bein subsidized, so essentially what you're talking about when you throw around concepts like this is compromising the happiness or well being of a few people for a greater amount of happiness for the rest of the population. In the present world, this belief is typically manifest in tax laws: i.e., we should tax the rich more heavily in order to redistribute that money to the less fortunate.

In this context [which is the only one I'm prepared to address at present, unless you'd care to furnish me with an alternate] it is wrong because it rewards failure and punishes success: in a system where the government is obligated to provide tax-funded aid to these people, you're making poverty a career choice. A bad career choice, but a career choice nonetheless. Fast food is a bad career choice but anyone can tell you that people still do it. In Mexico, for example, people are starting to realize that because bread prices are subsidized, they can just chill on the streets for 8 hours and walk home with a meal. No effort required. I'm not saying these people are inherently lazy or that they wouldn't work if given the chance, but if you make being poor too easy, no one will be interested in not being poor anymore.

In a healthcare context it's not so cut and dry; but the above tax premise is still somewhat applicable. You'd have a CEO paying perhaps $2 million a year in tax for "free" healthcare when all he'd get out of it would be maybe a physical or two and perhaps some dental work. People don't need angioplasties and pig hearts to survive: we've been surviving without them for ten thousand years. Medical science, like any other innovation devised by the human mind is an amenity. If it were necessary for the continuation of life, we would have probably have uncovered evidence of medical journals and operating gurneys in prehistoric dwellings by now.

I dunno. Maybe not. I don't understand economics too well, but I understand enough that commuism/ socialism will never work. Regulated Capitalism is the only system that doesn't result in utter failure.

I know it's not my post, but I'll respond anyhow. To respond to changing job trends (of the private sector), colleges (of the private sector) wish to accept well rounded kids, and produce well rounded people. It's especially important today. If you ask me, everyone needs at least a class in economics, and not just capitalist ones, to be fair. Of course, if you run a business, you probably know economics better than Alan Greenspan, or even Will Niskanen.

Completely privatized.

I’d rather a few have a lot, most have some, and a bit have little, than all to have little.
I guess that would be great if you personally are in the "few have a lot" group?

It isn't. At least, if by 'subsidize' you mean 'redistribute the labor of,' which is really the only definition I can think of. I'm probably the best one here to describe this reasoning, and I suspect I shall soon be forced to.


Well we can generally assume that people aren't happy with bein subsidized, so essentially what you're talking about when you throw around concepts like this is compromising the happiness or well being of a few people for a greater amount of happiness for the rest of the population. In the present world, this belief is typically manifest in tax laws: i.e., we should tax the rich more heavily in order to redistribute that money to the less fortunate.

In this context [which is the only one I'm prepared to address at present, unless you'd care to furnish me with an alternate] it is wrong because it rewards failure and punishes success: in a system where the government is obligated to provide tax-funded aid to these people, you're making poverty a career choice. A bad career choice, but a career choice nonetheless. Fast food is a bad career choice but anyone can tell you that people still do it. In Mexico, for example, people are starting to realize that because bread prices are subsidized, they can just chill on the streets for 8 hours and walk home with a meal. No effort required. I'm not saying these people are inherently lazy or that they wouldn't work if given the chance, but if you make being poor too easy, no one will be interested in not being poor anymore.

In a healthcare context it's not so cut and dry; but the above tax premise is still somewhat applicable. You'd have a CEO paying perhaps $2 million a year in tax for "free" healthcare when all he'd get out of it would be maybe a physical or two and perhaps some dental work. People don't need angioplasties and pig hearts to survive: we've been surviving without them for ten thousand years. Medical science, like any other innovation devised by the human mind is an amenity. If it were necessary for the continuation of life, we would have probably have uncovered evidence of medical journals and operating gurneys in prehistoric dwellings by now.
Melkor, you're making my job too easy. Is it your hobby to help out fellow liberatarians or something?

Pshaw! Alan Greenspan is a goddamn genius. Most people prefer to blame economic growth or decline on the President, but in reality the Federal Reserve Chairman holds that particular key.

By the way, Alan Greenspan is an Objectivist.

Pshaw! Alan Greenspan is a goddamn genius. Most people prefer to blame economic growth or decline on the President, but in reality the Federal Reserve Chairman holds that particular key.

By the way, Alan Greenspan is an Objectivist.
Was, I believe. If he were a thourough Objectivist, he'd probably refuse the job on principle.
BTW, in case you are wondering, I'm not one. I believe it is impossible for the government not to get involved in some things, like currency. And I'm not an athieist, nor do I plan on being one. But I do agree with Ayn Rand more than I thought at first glance. She may have been a bit looney, but at least she had the right idea.

Melkor, you're making my job too easy. Is it your hobby to help out fellow liberatarians or something?
I'm not exactly a libertarian, although if I were forced to pigeonhole myself it's probably where I'd end up. I agree with the vast majority of their platform, and I vote for them because they appear to be interested in not stealing my money.

That said, I consider myself an Objectivist foremost and a libertarian second. And my hobby is primarily oriented towards airing my opinion and slamming misconceptions and contradictions rather than 'help[ing] out fellow libertarians.'

Most people around here probably already know I'm not too down with the 'helping' thing, except in the relatively rare situations where the person being helped exemplifies my values. You appear to fit this description at least nominally, however I've read a couple of things from you I don't particularly care for either.

I'm not exactly a libertarian, although if I were forced to pigeonhole myself it's probably where I'd end up. I agree with the vast majority of their platform, and I vote for them because they appear to be interested in not stealing my money.

That said, I consider myself an Objectivist foremost and a libertarian second. And my hobby is primarily oriented towards airing my opinion and slamming misconceptions and contradictions rather than 'help[ing] out fellow libertarians.'

Most people around here probably already know I'm not too down with the 'helping' thing, except in the relatively rare situations where the person being helped exemplifies my values. You appear to fit this description at least nominally, however I've read a couple of things from you I don't particularly care for either.
What can I say? I'm complex.

I would say that I benefit directly as a result of my tax dollars being spent to afford a basic level of health care to the poorest citizens. If one is to claim "I should not have to pay for their health care" then one must also accept the risks inherent in having a whole segment of society potentially running around spreading virulent diseases to me, my friends and my family. I would sooner take the less selfish stance and have part of my taxes go to keep the disadvantaged (for whatever reason or whoever's fault) at a basic level of health than try to clutch all my tax dollars greedily to my breast and in so doing risk everyone else's health.

Even if it wasn't created, this person has a right to his talent, and used it as such.
Why do they have the right you claim for them? What exactly do you mean by 'right', and from whence does this right arise?

If he needed resources from outside, then it is his obligation to offer them compensation. Many people can do it. The government can't, as they are the only people that actively steal intellectual fruits and can get away with it.
How much compensation? In what form?

Simple tyranny of the numbers. Take my one uncle, hospitalized for a stroke. He is a veteran, and thus entitled to free healthcare. Is he gonna use it? No. He has choices that are better. You pay for what you get. If you pay nothing, you get what I think the VA offers: nothing. As people have a choice, they will abandon public clinics. That is why doctors are moving from Canada to the US in droves, and why VA hospitals are closing down. The only option is total nationalization, which is why I find it to stagnate.
Is you Uncle living the US? If so this is not a good example since it (the US system) is only one (rather strange) way in which health care can distributed. As a matter of empiracal fact, it is entirely possible for private health care providers to co-exist with government provided health care.

Competition begets innovation, right?
Not necessarily.

As Melkor said, numbers are tyranny. Many societies have achieved true equality. All of them end up poor and with no rights. To paraphrase Rousseau, all people must give up all rights for true equality.
What has true equality got to do with it? I asked why it is never fair for some to be subsidised by some others. I did not ask why it is never fair for there to be true equality.

You doubt it because yu refuse to question what you got now.
You really have no way of knowing what I do or do not question. As it happens your assertion is entirely incorrect.

I doubt the opposite, but because I see it, and it serves everyone poorly. But at least it's equality, right?
I dont know why you feel the need to bring equality into the issue. What exactly is it that you see? Can you explain to me why you believe that more people would be able to afford health care, if those who cannot afford to finance their own health care services out of their own resources, were excluded from accessing health care services? :confused:

I would say that I benefit directly as a result of my tax dollars being spent to afford a basic level of health care to the poorest citizens. If one is to claim "I should not have to pay for their health care" then one must also accept the risks inherent in having a whole segment of society potentially running around spreading virulent diseases to me, my friends and my family. I would sooner take the less selfish stance and have part of my taxes go to keep the disadvantaged (for whatever reason or whoever's fault) at a basic level of health than try to clutch all my tax dollars greedily to my breast and in so doing risk everyone else's health.
Have you ever considered that it may benefit people to stuff your taxdollars down your shirt? I'm being serious, here.

Was, I believe. If he were a thourough Objectivist, he'd probably refuse the job on principle.
You may be right, actually. I've heard both things said; that he is an Objectivist or that he was one at some point. I do know he was one of Ayn Rand's pupils back in the day.

BTW, in case you are wondering, I'm not one.
I know. believe it or not, I could tell already. I wasn't aware whether or not you were acquainted with the philosophy, but I could tell from your posts that you did not subscribe to it in any event.

I believe it is impossible for the government not to get involved in some things, like currency.
I thought it was pretty ridiculous when I heard it too, actually. I think given that it's the way we've been running things for some time now, it might be costlier to change that now.

And I'm not an athieist, nor do I plan on being one. But I do agree with Ayn Rand more than I thought at first glance. She may have been a bit looney, but at least she had the right idea.
Believe it or not, I have got some problems with Rand, and they seem to correspond at least somewhat with your complaints. For one thing, she was intensely dogmatic while at the same time arguing for the destruction of dogmatism.

Also, she discounted the fact that any form of creation requires a catalyst, and the universe is certainly no exception. I do reject the notion of an interventionist God, but I am prepared to point to the energy reaction that caused the Big Bang and call it "God," even if it doesn't have a material form anymore. Perhaps Rand understood this, perhaps she didn't; but given the traditional conceptions of God at the time I'm sure she wouldn't have lent a theory like mine very much thought.

I would say that I benefit directly as a result of my tax dollars being spent to afford a basic level of health care to the poorest citizens. If one is to claim "I should not have to pay for their health care" then one must also accept the risks inherent in having a whole segment of society potentially running around spreading virulent diseases to me, my friends and my family.
A common argument. This amounts to the assumption that without tax, everything will fall apart and degenerate into contagious chaos. I'm not sure I'm really prepared to accept that hypothesis, especially considering that the US isn't facing these problems and it doesn't have what I would call a nationalized, tax funded healthcare system.

Also, if you suddenly have 10 million people with measels, it suddenly becomes enormously profitable to solve the problem. You're not going to automatically have this problem without tax funded healthcare.

I would sooner take the less selfish stance and have part of my taxes go to keep the disadvantaged (for whatever reason or whoever's fault) at a basic level of health than try to clutch all my tax dollars greedily to my breast and in so doing risk everyone else's health.
That's great: more power to you. I'm serious. But what gives you the right to proclaim that everyone else needs to think the same way? History has shown that individuals are capbable of solving problems, and disease is a problem just like any other that was probably considered undefeatable 300 years ago.

In short, I'm not risking anyone's health by keeping the money that I fucking worked for because I'm not taking away something they already have. I am not depriving them of anything, I'm merely keeping what's mine. If some bum wants 10% of my paycheck for his Codeine prescription, then he should have to work 10% of my shift.

It's all well and good to want the best for people, but demanding that I need to want the best for people amounts to moral cannibalism. Since I can only be held responsible for my actions, the results of those actions and thir moral implications should be my concern, not yours, not Congress'.

Well we can generally assume that people aren't happy with bein subsidized,
Can we? Why so? Even if we can, can we assume that the overall amount of happiness with people being subsidised is less than the overall amount of happiness with no one being subsidised. I am not convinced that we can.

so essentially what you're talking about when you throw around concepts like this is compromising the happiness or well being of a few people for a greater amount of happiness for the rest of the population. In the present world, this belief is typically manifest in tax laws: i.e., we should tax the rich more heavily in order to redistribute that money to the less fortunate.
I'm not convinced this is the case. What evidence is there that we are actually sacrificing the nett happiness of any one person?

In this context [which is the only one I'm prepared to address at present, unless you'd care to furnish me with an alternate] it is wrong because it rewards failure and punishes success: in a system where the government is obligated to provide tax-funded aid to these people, you're making poverty a career choice.
I do not find that to be a necessary implication of subsidising some. I do not see that those who would be subsidised would in the absence of subsidies, suddenly be better able to acquire resources. They may instead simply be worse off, and while they are at may cause those who can afford health care to be worse off as well. I do not see anything yet that convinces me that there is a net loss of happiness or well-being inherent in subsidising, or that any particular person or group of persons will necessary suffer a loss of net happiness.

A bad career choice, but a career choice nonetheless. Fast food is a bad career choice but anyone can tell you that people still do it. In Mexico, for example, people are starting to realize that because bread prices are subsidized, they can just chill on the streets for 8 hours and walk home with a meal. No effort required. I'm not saying these people are inherently lazy or that they wouldn't work if given the chance, but if you make being poor too easy, no one will be interested in not being poor anymore.
Untrue. People will not all suddenly decide they dont mind have next to nothing and missing all the good things in life just because they could have an inferior life-style, but work marginally less. We are not talking about subsidising daily living costs (such as food or shelter) we are discussing health care services. Why would someone work less hard just because on the off-chance they became ill, they might not have to pay for all the services they recieve? I see no reason why I would forgo all the perks of earning to my full capacity just so I could possibly take advantage of a subsidy, on a service I would rather not need to use. :confused:

In a healthcare context it's not so cut and dry; but the above tax premise is still somewhat applicable. You'd have a CEO paying perhaps $2 million a year in tax for "free" healthcare when all he'd get out of it would be maybe a physical or two and perhaps some dental work.
If a CEO can afford to pay $2,000000 in taxes, I'm not convinced that this is a problem.

People don't need angioplasties and pig hearts to survive: we've been surviving without them for ten thousand years. Medical science, like any other innovation devised by the human mind is an amenity. If it were necessary for the continuation of life, we would have probably have uncovered evidence of medical journals and operating gurneys in prehistoric dwellings by now.
I'm not sure how this is relevent. Survival of the species (what it seems you are refering to), is not the same as optimal conditions for the species, or a sub-group there-of.

Have you ever considered that it may benefit people to stuff your taxdollars down your shirt? I'm being serious, here.

No, I must confess that particular course of action and possible result never did occur to me.

I would suggest though that tucking in your shirt is grossly out of fashion, so if I want to be at all fashionable I would have my money dropping out the bottom. And then I would have a bunch of poor people following me around trying to snatch up the money, and those are the ones who would be less able to afford the healthcare and so stuffing my tax dollars down my shirt might contain an even more immediate health risk!

Why do they have the right you claim for them? What exactly do you mean by 'right', and from whence does this right arise?
Where does any right come from?

How much compensation? In what form?
Whatever can be negotiated. The playing field, I believe, is inherently more level in private negotiations, as accountability does not get tossed around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The private sector must scrutinize, or else customers will leave them.

Is you Uncle living the US? If so this is not a good example since it (the US system) is only one (rather strange) way in which health care can distributed. As a matter of empiracal fact, it is entirely possible for private health care providers to co-exist with government provided health care.

It only coexists because no one really uses the VA. It's a shame that our veterans return home to learn to be dependent. And here they were thinking they were independent when they moved from their parents.
Not necessarily.
I disagree. The need of self preservation is the strongest instinct of any human. Any human that does something, and another must do the same better to collect the rewards. That incentive is gone with no competititon.

What has true equality got to do with it? I asked why it is never fair for some to be subsidised by some others. I did not ask why it is never fair for there to be true equality.

Because every human can control only one thing: where they are going in life. Free money by the government creates dependency. It's especially rediculous with Medicare, which is dependent solely on age for its justification to exist.
I dont know why you feel the need to bring equality into the issue. What exactly is it that you see? Can you explain to me why you believe that more people would be able to afford health care, if those who cannot afford to finance their own health care services out of their own resources, were excluded from accessing health care services? :confused:
I see you, and anyone arguing for subsidization, believing that the many are more important than the few. Universal healthcare itself implies healthcare for all. Whether or not it is free is one thing. The fact is that it is equal. I think it is a shitty equal. Our whole world was built on the idea of being better than equal. Otherwise, we'd all be cavemen. We were equal at the beginnning. Why should some cave man live longer by making better tools not everyone could get? If socialism came to that era, we'd all be in big doodoo.

You may be right, actually. I've heard both things said; that he is an Objectivist or that he was one at some point. I do know he was one of Ayn Rand's pupils back in the day.[/quote[
Have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?? In case you haven't, it's a collection of her essays, plus a few from her main backers, including Greenspan. He argued for the destruction of the Fed. Ah, the irony. I wonder why that never came back to bite him?

[quote]Believe it or not, I have got some problems with Rand, and they seem to correspond at least somewhat with your complaints. For one thing, she was intensely dogmatic while at the same time arguing for the destruction of dogmatism.

Also, she discounted the fact that any form of creation requires a catalyst, and the universe is certainly no exception. I do reject the notion of an interventionist God, but I am prepared to point to the energy reaction that caused the Big Bang and call it "God," even if it doesn't have a material form anymore. Perhaps Rand understood this, perhaps she didn't; but given the traditional conceptions of God at the time I'm sure she wouldn't have lent a theory like mine very much thought.
It's interesting to ponder. But let's save it for another thread. I don't like getting sidetracked.

A common argument. This amounts to the assumption that without tax, everything will fall apart and degenerate into contagious chaos. I'm not sure I'm really prepared to accept that hypothesis, especially considering that the US isn't facing these problems and it doesn't have what I would call a nationalized, tax funded healthcare system.

Also, if you suddenly have 10 million people with measels, it suddenly becomes enormously profitable to solve the problem. You're not going to automatically have this problem without tax funded healthcare.
Ah but it is, many uninsured are heading to the emergency rooms, and usually too late to stop a mass contagin, driving up costs AND should something like SARS break out in the US...

This isn't a road Melkor, this isn't a bridge wating for Redon or Taggert to come and build, this is the possibility of another black death spreading rapidly with the carrier infecting hundreds before they are sick enough to seek medical attention.

These are infectious, nasty stuff that can be stopped with incoulations, but you would deny that to any unable to pay, and the ONLY reason many can afford them know is federal laws that heavily subsidise them. Want smallpox back?

And just because YOU'VE worked doesn't mean you'll be free from this, sickness doesn't seem to care too much about the wealth of the person.

I prefer Japan's system, second in the world to the US. Children under 15, adults over 65, and pregnant women get it free. Everyone else pays 30% of needed procedures. Something that is not needed is 100% of the cost. And you can buy additional insurance if you so wish from private companies.

It seems to be working out well.

Oh, and Melkor? They've discovered obvious medical procedures early humans quite far back, homo sapiens of course, but there looks like quite a bit going on.

No, I must confess that particular course of action and possible result never did occur to me.

I would suggest though that tucking in your shirt is grossly out of fashion, so if I want to be at all fashionable I would have my money dropping out the bottom. And then I would have a bunch of poor people following me around trying to snatch up the money, and those are the ones who would be less able to afford the healthcare and so stuffing my tax dollars down my shirt might contain an even more immediate health risk!
You're right about the shirt part. Perhaps a wallet or bank account would work better.
Seriously, tax dollars are literally free money. They are pilferred from you because you have no other option, save prison. Obviously, it's no bad thing. Tangeble results come from it, and I'd argue that defense is a vital function of any government. But it is free money that the government did not "earn", but took. They are dependent on free cash. Perhaps that is why they feel oblidged to give everyone free cash, so everyone is as dependent as the government.
Dependency means no incentive to work, or in other words, to produce. They consume only what comes to them. If they had a fundemental need to produce, then they have incentive to produce beyond what can be given to them.
Every taxpayer is a murderer, but not of the body. Rather, it is the spirit. The spirit is unique: its best nourishment is nothing at all. So to paraphrase my arguement, a little more selfishness is good for everyone. Blanche DuBois dependend on the kindness of strangers, and it made her crazy.

I prefer Japan's system, second in the world to the US.
The US system is the best in the world? Methinks not.

But what gives you the right to proclaim that everyone else needs to think the same way?
I proclaim no such thing. We elect representatives in my country whose job is to decide what the majority wants and what is in the public interest, and in my country the majority holds universal health care as one of our highest priorities. It is in a desperate shambles right now due to poor funding levels and mismanagement, but the vast majority of Canadians want that system maintained. The very suggestion of privatisation of our health care is enough to get a political party trounced in any election.

You could use the same argument to say you should have the right to break a lot of laws. Most would not agree.

As for "some bum wanting 10% of your paycheck", you conveniently ignore the fact that society's cooperation has built the system around you that allows you to earn that wage. It's like saying "why should I have to pay for roads when I don't drive a car? Those tax dollars should be MINE since I walk to work" but ignoring the fact that if not for those roads, your employer would not exist and you would have no paycheck.

We all benefit from social programs and infrastructure spending, sometimes it just isn't obvious on the surface. Disagree if you like, have your country however you want it.

The US system is the best in the world? Methinks not.
In terms of the quality and ability, yes. The US still has the leaders in most medical fields and usually devlops a good portion of proceedures. Its standards are some of the highest in the world, if not the.

In terms of avalibility and accessability, no. We've developed all these wonderful things, and then proceed to price them out of the reach of just about everyone.

Can we? Why so? Even if we can, can we assume that the overall amount of happiness with people being subsidised is less than the overall amount of happiness with no one being subsidised. I am not convinced that we can.
OK, I'm going to come over to your house and take away all your cool shit and give it to someone else because they don't have it. Happy?

It's a generalization; you'd have noticed I actually said "generalization" in my original post. If you think that as a general rule, people are happy with their property being ceaselessly redistributed, I suspect this argument has rapidly lost all purpose and any attempt to continue on my part would be fruitless.

I'm not convinced this is the case. What evidence is there that we are actually sacrificing the nett happiness of any one person?
You're kidding me, right? I answer this question in the post you just answered. See the part of tax laws. If you don't think that's evidence, I suspect this argument has rapidly lost all purpose and any attempt to continue on my part would be fruitless.

I do not find that to be a necessary implication of subsidising some.
Depends on the context. If you're talking about subsidizing money or resources [which is typically the norm in a political context], you bet it's the implication.

I do not see that those who would be subsidised would in the absence of subsidies, suddenly be better able to acquire resources.
Who knows, maybe they'd be worse off. I don't particularly care. I'm not arguing that it will make things easier for them; getting oneself out of poverty is not my concern since I've already done that. Like I told Swimmingpool, you can shake that pity tree all you want; aint nothin' gonna fall out of it. Pity is no more a justification for policy than hatred is.

They may instead simply be worse off, and while they are at may cause those who can afford health care to be worse off as well. I do not see anything yet that convinces me that there is a net loss of happiness or well-being inherent in subsidising, or that any particular person or group of persons will necessary suffer a loss of net happiness.
You already said this. In a debate, it's generally a good idea to create new arguments rather than to restate your premise. If you're not convinced, I'm sorry, but the evidence is right there for anyone who cares to look.

If you'd like, I can give you an example that pulls your heartstrings about all the poor piteous impoverished. In this country, we are currently ahnding out subsidy money to prevent farmers from growing crops on their land, because the government agreed to a number of subsidy terms with the agricultural industry some time ago. We've had some good growing seasons, so any more incoming crops would decrease their value. Since we want it to stay above a certain level [to guarantee profit to farmers], no new crops can come in.

So now that this food is not being grown, it means, in effect, that less people are being fed. Our national crop surpluses are not what they could be, and that much less aid is being dispatched to hunger-ridden nations in Africa and Asia.

See it now?

Untrue. People will not all suddenly decide they dont mind have next to nothing and missing all the good things in life just because they could have an inferior life-style, but work marginally less. We are not talking about subsidising daily living costs (such as food or shelter) we are discussing health care services.
Uh... I know what I'm talking about, but aside from thost last sentence, I don't understand any of this. Perhaps it could be phrased better. I could be wrong, but I think a few key words may be missing.

Why would someone work less hard just because on the off-chance they became ill, they might not have to pay for all the services they recieve? I see no reason why I would forgo all the perks of earning to my full capacity just so I could possibly take advantage of a subsidy, on a service I would rather not need to use. :confused:
Apparently, I'm just as confused as you are. What the hell does this mean? You're not making any sense to me.

If a CEO can afford to pay $2,000000 in taxes, I'm not convinced that this is a problem.
I call bullshit. Right and wrong is not a numerical issue: certain things don't magically become right just on virtue of the quantity of whatever we happen to be talking about. He can probably afford it and he might not even actually care about it, but ambivalence is not a valid measure of right and wrong either.

I'm not sure how this is relevent. Survival of the species (what it seems you are refering to), is not the same as optimal conditions for the species, or a sub-group there-of.
I don't think it's particularly relevant either. It's a knee-jerk answer to the oft-used Socialist argument that people need healthcare to live. "Optimal conditions" is a completely different issue, and I don't think anyone would support the right of every person to live in 'optimal conditions' [even if it were possible] is they knew exactly what it entailed.

Frighteningly enough, some of them do know and they still beleive in this nonsense.

Government compensation of the poor creates the poor while destroying anyone financially better off.

Debatable.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm

If he needed resources from outside, then it is his obligation to offer them compensation.
Indeed, like a police force to provide him security to have his ideas, the utility infrastructure to provide him power and other necessities that allow him the opportunity to create his ideas and so forth. The compensation he offers is typically known as taxes.

That is why doctors are moving from Canada to the US in droves,They're not actually. The brain drain reversed itself a couple of years ago.

Competition begets innovation, right?
No. Necessity does. Competition is a great spur to necessity, I'll admit, but certainly not the be-all and end-all.

I'm perfectly happy with capitalism for most things. But for things like healthcare, where the invisible hand becomes a closed fist because demand is infinite (you don't pay, you/your family members die) it's time for the state to step in. There are many health services which are simply too costly to provide to the poor, the expertise and technology required mean that your bottom end cost is higher than the poor person can afford without assistance. The objectivist and libertarian viewpoints on these issues seem to be either the flat denial of "this wouldn't happen" or the wishful thinking of "private charity would help out", both of which fly in the face of reality. (Statistics have shown that people tend to donate to charity as a percentage of their income -- a percentage that tends to remain the same regardless as to whether their income grows or shrinks -- and for the vast majority, that percentage is 0.)

In a no-holds-barred capitalist health-care system, hospitals can arbitrarily set the price point at the absolute maximum you can afford, including credit and other leverage, and you have no choice but to pay it -- or suffer. It wouldn't be 50,000 for a heart surgery, it would be "what can you sign over"

Yeah, you can comparison shop, but there are a limited number of surgical hours available, an unlimited number of patients, and a very strong compulsion to purchase as soon as possible. What holds them in check right now are government regulations and competition from nationalized systems such as in Canada.

The US system is the best in the world? Methinks not.
Just close the Peace Brigde and the Thousand Islands' Bridge, and maybe you'd get a good healthcare system. It'd slow the exodus of doctors.

I proclaim no such thing. We elect representatives in my country whose job is to decide what the majority wants and what is in the public interest, and in my country the majority holds universal health care as one of our highest priorities. It is in a desperate shambles right now due to poor funding levels and mismanagement, but the vast majority of Canadians want that system maintained. The very suggestion of privatisation of our health care is enough to get a political party trounced in any election.
Ah, the old popular = right argument. It gets better every time I hear it. Denied!

You could use the same argument to say you should have the right to break a lot of laws. Most would not agree.

I have, and I do. On a daily basis, in fact. Just because a bunch of idiots on Capitol Hill say something is so don't make it so! The fact that most would not agree makes about as much difference to me as the color of your socks.

As for "some bum wanting 10% of your paycheck", you conveniently ignore the fact that society's cooperation has built the system around you that allows you to earn that wage.
Right, and I provided that society a service; and they apparently haven't got much of a problem with paying for said service. If people want to pay for bums' Prozac prescriptions, then why don't they go out and do that? Why would they prefer to buy a computer and then tell Bill Gates that he should spend his money paying for a Prozac subscription for bums? Seems like a needlessly circuitous path of action to me.

It's like saying "why should I have to pay for roads when I don't drive a car? Those tax dollars should be MINE since I walk to work" but ignoring the fact that if not for those roads, your employer would not exist and you would have no paycheck.
I understand your example, but this is something of a monstrous leap of logic. I'm sure some employment opportunities would exist without roads and I also beleive that [gasp!] if the government dropped the ball with the roads thing it would have gotten done anyway. Such as it is, they appear to be running them satisfactorily.

But, to answer your analogy, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for roads not because I don't use them, but because I don't particulraly think it is the Government's responsibility to build things for people.

Also, it's my understanding that state roadways are not tax funded; generally they rely on DOT funds [license fees, tickets, etc] to fund them. The only Federal funding that is used for roads [to my knowledge] is used on the Interstate system. It's how they circumvented states' rights by mandating that all states raise the drinking age to 21: if they didn't, said state would lose federal highway funding.

We all benefit from social programs and infrastructure spending, sometimes it just isn't obvious on the surface. Disagree if you like, have your country however you want it.
Infrastructure maybe, provided it's efficiently run and doesn't turn into a bubbling cauldron of corruption like Social Security has.

Trying to make the same case for social programs, however, is laughable at best. If I had the money I've wasted paying for SS or Welfare back, I could probably afford to get off my ass and go to school. Somehow I see a greater benefit to me in that than still working a delivery-boy job to get the money to go to school.

Where does any right come from?
You asserted a right existed, you can hardly expect me to tell you where the right you are suggesting derives from. If you believe such a right exists, what kind of right is it, and from what does this right derive?


Whatever can be negotiated. The playing field, I believe, is inherently more level in private negotiations, as accountability does not get tossed around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The private sector must scrutinize, or else customers will leave them.
What do you mean private insitutions. I pay for person X to get their primary education, what recompense am I likely to be able to negotiate out of X now that thanks to my contributions, X is a productive member of society? The only reasonable recompense appears to be, to expect X to do the same thing I did...contribute according his or her capacity.

It only coexists because no one really uses the VA. It's a shame that our veterans return home to learn to be dependent. And here they were thinking they were independent when they moved from their parents.
Irrelevent. The VA is not the only government owned health provider in the world, nor the only government owned health care provider that operates alongside private health care providers.

I disagree. The need of self preservation is the strongest instinct of any human. Any human that does something, and another must do the same better to collect the rewards. That incentive is gone with no competititon.
Nothing you have said convinces me that competition cannot result in an equilibrium, in which margins are too low to encourage risk taking and innovations.

Because every human can control only one thing: where they are going in life.
Not every human being can control where they are going in life. Some human beings can control much more than where they are going in life.

Free money by the government creates dependency. It's especially rediculous with Medicare, which is dependent solely on age for its justification to exist.
I am not talking about free money. I am talking about government intervention in the distribution of health care services. As for your statement about Medicare, I doubt very much that it is dependent soley on age for its justification.

I see you, and anyone arguing for subsidization, believing that the many are more important than the few.
Actually I have not really argued much of anything so far as I can tell. I am still trying to find out what the rational behind your own arguments is.

Universal healthcare itself implies healthcare for all.
Right, that would perhaps be relevent if universal health care were the onlyn alternative to 'free market' distribution.

Whether or not it is free is one thing. The fact is that it is equal. I think it is a shitty equal. Our whole world was built on the idea of being better than equal.
So you raised equality because you believe that there is not a wide range of possibilities between universal health care, and 'free market' distribution? :confused:

Otherwise, we'd all be cavemen. We were equal at the beginnning. Why should some cave man live longer by making better tools not everyone could get? If socialism came to that era, we'd all be in big doodoo.
What? Who do you mean by cavemen? What beginning? I tend to think these cavemen comments are ill-concieved at best. :confused:

Ah but it is, many uninsured are heading to the emergency rooms, and usually too late to stop a mass contagin, driving up costs AND should something like SARS break out in the US...
Funny, this is the first I've heard of this looming epedemic. I'm sure the Government can set things right! After all they've done a great job with any other problem they've tried to solve since 1917!

This isn't a road Melkor, this isn't a bridge wating for Redon or Taggert to come and build, this is the possibility of another black death spreading rapidly with the carrier infecting hundreds before they are sick enough to seek medical attention.
If you get to say that an epidemic could break out, I get to say that a comet could hit the Earth tomorrow, rendering all of this completely pointless. Just because something bad could happen [and they do all the time] doesn't mean it's morally justified to take every conceivable action to prevent it. If we wanted to prevent all disease, we'd just stay locked up in quarantine.

If you want to turn this into a matter of practicality, responding with something like "Well, we should only do it in the instances where it makes sense to do so," you're switching gears and you're effectively admitting that it's not a moral proclimation that people have these certain inalienable rights, but rather that these rights are contingent on the needs of some higher purpose, be it 'God,' 'Society,' or 'Practicality.' This precludes them being 'inalienable.' As I keep saying, to secularize a mistake is still to make it.

These are infectious, nasty stuff that can be stopped with incoulations, but you would deny that to any unable to pay, and the ONLY reason many can afford them know is federal laws that heavily subsidise them. Want smallpox back?
Right, because we all know that without Government, there can be no progress. Please. This isn't worth my time.

And just because YOU'VE worked doesn't mean you'll be free from this, sickness doesn't seem to care too much about the wealth of the person.
Wait, what? When did I say that rich people don't get sick? I'm a little confused here.

Oh, and Melkor? They've discovered obvious medical procedures early humans quite far back, homo sapiens of course, but there looks like quite a bit going on.
See my reply to Zagat. I'm certainly prepared to admit that we perform routine maintenance on ourselves and probably have done so to the best of our ability throughout the course of history. This doesn't, however, mean that 'people need healthcare to live.'

Oh, and NEVRUN? Try not to talk to me like a child next time. I really don't like it.

If I had the money I've wasted paying for SS or Welfare back, I could probably afford to get off my ass and go to school. Somehow I see a greater benefit to me in that than still working a delivery-boy job to get the money to go to school.

But how do you know that if you could wave your wand and make SS and Welfare disappear from history and you had all those dollars back, that the other costs of living and of delivering private healthcare plans and private retirement plans for education employees would not simply have raised the cost of tuition even higher than it already is? You might find yourself worse off than you are now.

Something to consider for all you public heathcare is bad types.

I have a mediocre plan. They seem to shift cost to us every year and they cover less. But that is not the point.

Up the street there was a family of immigrants. No health care. My kid plays with them since they are great kids. They play with her. Treat her well. Watch out for her and will "rat" her out when she does things wrong. Much better then the two american born and raised bitches that live next store and across the street.

Well to continue the story; one got sick, then another, and then all were sick. They didn't do anything because they thought it was only a sickness. They didn't have insurence.

The little one went really bad and they ran her into the emergency room. Diagnosis. Bacterial Meningitas :eek: Needless to say we sat a few days overly watching our kid as to symptoms.

Furture testing showed it was only viral.

So you may think we save money but you could get affected by those that don't have coverage.

Funny, this is the first I've heard of this looming epedemic. I'm sure the Government can set things right! After all they've done a great job with any other problem they've tried to solve since 1917!
Actually, since 1917 the US healthcare system has done wonders. Again, eradication of smallpox, polio, reduction on childhood measles, mumps, and rubella. And inroads on tetanus, thousands, if not millions, of people who would have died or been disabled for life are now healthy, (supposedly) working, adults.

And the US Health Department is worried, SARS and the flu, especially after the killer outbreak shortly after WWI showed just how quickly this could spead and claim a lot of lives.

If you get to say that an epidemic could break out, I get to say that a comet could hit the Earth tomorrow, rendering all of this completely pointless. Just because something bad could happen [and they do all the time] doesn't mean it's morally justified to take every conceivable action to prevent it. If we wanted to prevent all disease, we'd just stay locked up in quarantine.
True, however I would suggestion that prevention and health care is not extream action. Identification and inoculation is the best way to stop this and is not a major burden. I'm not suggesting that we need to start taking care of everything, but it seems to be a smart thing to do, especially living in close quaters the way we are with unpresidented travel.

Every conceviable action IS extream, but doing nothing to prevent a disaster is foolish as well, and also not morally justifiable.

If you want to turn this into a matter of practicality, responding with something like "Well, we should only do it in the instances where it makes sense to do so," you're switching gears and you're effectively admitting that it's not a moral proclimation that people have these certain inalienable rights, but rather that these rights are contingent on the needs of some higher purpose, be it 'God,' 'Society,' or 'Practicality.' This precludes them being 'inalienable.' As I keep saying, to secularize a mistake is still to make it.
I never said that it was a moral reason, there are moral reasons of course, but since morality is accepted only by the individual, it's hardly a reason to win arguments now is it? However, MY reason is based upon two notions, praticality; being that a healthy citizenry is better in the long run and more productive, and that futher cost would be incured should we ignore health care until we DO have an epidemic on our hands. The second one is self-intrest. It's in my own best intrest to make sure that other around me are not sick and dying so I and my family do not suffer the same fate.

Wait, what? When did I say that rich people don't get sick? I'm a little confused here.
Heading off an argument that those who could afford health care need not worry about epidemics as I named.

See my reply to Zagat. I'm certainly prepared to admit that we perform routine maintenance on ourselves and probably have done so to the best of our ability throughout the course of history. This doesn't, however, mean that 'people need healthcare to live.'
Depends upon your meaning of 'need'. My step-father for example had to have an artificial valve placed in his heart to correct a birth defect. The doctor told him that if he had waited a week, he would have been dead. Today, 8 years later, he must take medication daily or else he would indeed die within a few days. He does need this to live.

I, however, do not truely NEED to wear a hearing aid. One ear works just fine and it provides me with a good excuse why I'm ignoring something, but I don't NEED this to live no. It is nice however.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here with need?

Oh, and NEVRUN? Try not to talk to me like a child next time. I really don't like it.
Wanted to make sure I got your attention. You DO have a tendancy to get into arguments with someone and ignore everyone else. ;)

OK, I'm going to come over to your house and take away all your cool shit and give it to someone else because they don't have it. Happy?
Relevence? Subsidising people does not necessarily envolve going into someone's house, much less taking all their 'cool shit' once you get there.

It's a generalization; you'd have noticed I actually said "generalization" in my original post.
Yes I did notice, I question not only the accuracy of this particular generalisation, but the utility of any generalisation that has not been demonstrated to be applicable to whatever is being discussed (in any particular discussion).

If you think that as a general rule, people are happy with their property being ceaselessly redistributed, I suspect this argument has rapidly lost all purpose and any attempt to continue on my part would be fruitless.
General rule? Is there some general rule that people are happy so long as their property is not being ceaselessly redistributed. Why are we even discussing ceaseless redistribution when ceaseless redistribution has not been shown to be relevent to the particular subject being discussed? In fact just what exactly is meant by ceaseless redistribution?

You're kidding me, right?
No.
I answer this question in the post you just answered. See the part of tax laws. If you don't think that's evidence, I suspect this argument has rapidly lost all purpose and any attempt to continue on my part would be fruitless.
What part about tax laws, the anecdote about a really rich CEO, or the anecdote about bread? Or bit about simply assuming that this or that makes one more or less happy. I do not see any argument that establishes your claim that what I am talking about is sacrificing the well being or happiness of a few for the sake of the many, because you have yet to demonstrate that anyone's net happiness will be detracted from. Further you have not demonstrated why we should not prefer to sacrifice some happiness of a few people in order to ensure a greater net happiness across all people. To isolate out one aspect or implication of health care provision, without consideration for all the other implications, is simplistic. Nothing you have said demonstrates that your model includes the negative effects of non-redistribution or the positive effects of redistribution. Rather it appears you are cherry picking particular aspects, isolating them, and considering there effects as if the effects of those aspects were independent of all other possible effects of non-redistribution and redistribution.

Depends on the context. If you're talking about subsidizing money or resources [which is typically the norm in a political context], you bet it's the implication.
It is not a necessary implication, so far as I can see. Unless you can substantiate otherwise, is there some reason why I would just take your word for it?

Who knows, maybe they'd be worse off. I don't particularly care. I'm not arguing that it will make things easier for them; getting oneself out of poverty is not my concern since I've already done that. Like I told Swimmingpool, you can shake that pity tree all you want; aint nothin' gonna fall out of it. Pity is no more a justification for policy than hatred is.
You suggested that ensuring health care would make poverty a career choice, yet it can only be a choice if there is some alternative. If they would be poor regardless whether or not they can access health care due to government provisions, then it is not true that ensuring such access would make poverty a career choice, since it isnt a choice in either case. It's not pity, it's logic. It cannot be true that if the government ensures access to health care, those that would have been poor regardless of such provision, are suddenly choosing to be poor, even though in either case they actually cannot not be poor.

You already said this. In a debate, it's generally a good idea to create new arguments rather than to restate your premise. If you're not convinced, I'm sorry, but the evidence is right there for anyone who cares to look.
What debate? Lotus Puppy made some statements, I didnt find that the arguments and information offered convinced me of the arguments, you offered some further information and arguments that does not do very much more to convince me. Either you can or you cannot substantiate your claims, either way I dont see it as a debate, I am simply giving those making arguments similar to Lotus Puppy's the chance to prove that there actually is some basis to the arguments that were offered. As for evidence, no, conjecture and evidence are not the same thing at all.

If you'd like, I can give you an example that pulls your heartstrings about all the poor piteous impoverished.
Suit yourself, although in fairness to you, I feel I should point out that you would get much further with logic and facts so far as convincing me is concerned.

In this country, we are currently ahnding out subsidy money to prevent farmers from growing crops on their land, because the government agreed to a number of subsidy terms with the agricultural industry some time ago. We've had some good growing seasons, so any more incoming crops would decrease their value. Since we want it to stay above a certain level [to guarantee profit to farmers], no new crops can come in.

So now that this food is not being grown, it means, in effect, that less people are being fed. Our national crop surpluses are not what they could be, and that much less aid is being dispatched to hunger-ridden nations in Africa and Asia.

See it now?
No, I do not see how your lovely farming anecdote is even relevent. I can see how one might fallaciously claim that it is analogous, but in fact such a claim would be weak and based on a very lacklustre inductive argument.

Uh... I know what I'm talking about, but aside from thost last sentence, I don't understand any of this. Perhaps it could be phrased better. I could be wrong, but I think a few key words may be missing.
Bread and healthcare are not the same. Why would someone who can afford healthcare suddenly choose to forgo all the other luxeries their freedom from poverty brings, just so that on the offchance they get sick, they can get a subsidy on health care? They wouldnt. Health care access is not analogous to bread access. One is a daily need, the other is a very occasional need. Even if a person had access to the very best healthcare, they will probably still be inclined to eat. I do not see that access to healthcare will cause people to wait around on the side of the road forgoing items like food, because they can access health care. Bread and health care can be distinguished in such a way, that your analogy is completely without value.

Apparently, I'm just as confused as you are. What the hell does this mean? You're not making any sense to me.
I think the confusion probably stems from your attempted analogy. Clearly bread and health care can be distinguished so that to attempt to reason that because offering free bread might make people not work, the same result might stem from ensuring access to health care, is so absurd, when it is presented back to you, even you cannot work out how you considered them analogous. Simply put your bread analogy does not work.

I call bullshit. Right and wrong is not a numerical issue: certain things don't magically become right just on virtue of the quantity of whatever we happen to be talking about. He can probably afford it and he might not even actually care about it, but ambivalence is not a valid measure of right and wrong either.
Aha, well I call bullshit, what makes it wrong so it would need to be magically right? You have not demonstrated that there is anything wrong regardless of the money value, you have not even suggested the axioms of the value system you are measuring right and wrong with.

I don't think it's particularly relevant either. It's a knee-jerk answer to the oft-used Socialist argument that people need healthcare to live. "Optimal conditions" is a completely different issue, and I don't think anyone would support the right of every person to live in 'optimal conditions' [even if it were possible] is they knew exactly what it entailed.
I never stated that optimal conditions need be measured (or is best measured) individually.

Frighteningly enough, some of them do know and they still beleive in this nonsense.

I think PJ said it well:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." – P.J. O'Rourke
Then you haven't learnt that the American system is much more expensive than the European system?

In terms of the quality and ability, yes. The US still has the leaders in most medical fields and usually devlops a good portion of proceedures. Its standards are some of the highest in the world, if not the.

In terms of avalibility and accessability, no. We've developed all these wonderful things, and then proceed to price them out of the reach of just about everyone.
Well if the system is priced out of the reach of "just about everyone", then the overall "quality" is poor?

The following link may be a tad outdated because it is based on stats up to 2000:

Best in the World or Just the Most Expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

This is going to be fun.

Relevence? Subsidising people does not necessarily envolve going into someone's house, much less taking all their 'cool shit' once you get there.
I don't know how to respond to this. The nature of your response seems to indicate that you haven't the foggiest notion what a subsidy is. My example was something of a desperate stab at describing the concept as it didn't seem to get through the first time around. A subsidy, when carried out by the State, always involves a reallocation of labor or the product of that labor. When I talk about walking into your house and taking stuff away, I'm assuming in a radical instance that someone has been authorized to 'reallocate' those particular resources.

The very fact that you address the specifics of the argument rather than the concept it denotes, the concept that I've been trying to explain for the last two posts speaks volumes as to the futility of any further attempts on my part to break down the issue any further. Call it charity, but I feel oddly compelled to continue anyway.

Yes I did notice, I question not only the accuracy of this particular generalisation, but the utility of any generalisation that has not been demonstrated to be applicable to whatever is being discussed (in any particular discussion).
Wait, what? That makes no sense. You're telling me that it's invalid purely on virtue of the fact that it's a generalization? This sentence gets a little confusing towards the end.

General rule? Is there some general rule that people are happy so long as their property is not being ceaselessly redistributed. Why are we even discussing ceaseless redistribution when ceaseless redistribution has not been shown to be relevent to the particular subject being discussed? In fact just what exactly is meant by ceaseless redistribution?
If you want to know what is meant, look it up. I use words as they're defined and I'm not here to explain to you what words mean. A subsidy--any subsidy-- is a permanent obligation of the State and thus, the reallocation of labor or the product of that labor is necessary--by definition to the very idea of a State subsidy, regardless of whether its right or not.

If you plan to set up a subsidy or favor setting one up, one can assume that such a policy would want to be a permanent obligation, hence the ceaseless part. Some people benefit; farmers get to cash fat government subsidy checks. Oftentimes, they get the same amount [or more] for growing less.

I do not see any argument that establishes your claim that what I am talking about is sacrificing the well being or happiness of a few for the sake of the many, because you have yet to demonstrate that anyone's net happiness will be detracted from.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood, I may have led you on with something I didn't mean. I was attempting to counter the 'happiness' issue with its own logic.

Typically, the theory of 'economic rights,' i.e. the idea that people have a right to certain things like healthcare or food or money or what have you stems from an epistemological school of thought that teaches us that happiness and pain are the benchmarks by which we are to gauge moral action. By which they mean to say an action is judged as "good" or "bad" by the amount of people it benefits. The idea is to "maximize happiness" since this school of thought contends that happiness is the measure of virtue.

Applied to this topic that logic tells us that nationalized, tax funded healthcare is moral because it generates the greatest amount of happiness/well being and so forth.

I reject this notion completely, and I'm more than certain you disagree. Happiness, I contend, is the purpose of virtue, because virtues are actions enacted to acheive material values. By material values I mean values that can exist and be defined in a rational sense; a 'bond' or 'feeling' in most conventional morality prevents this, insisting that we're all 'in it together' and so forth. A 'human bond' or a 'feeling of brotherhood' is an emotion. To put it bluntly, reason, being my only means of discerning the nature of reality, means that it should be the guiding factor when I make moral pronouncements. Hence, Objectivist.*

Frankly, I don't trust any of the rest of you bastards any farther than I can throw you. I'm not prepared to put my faith or make an investment in some random dude.

Further you have not demonstrated why we should not prefer to sacrifice some happiness of a few people in order to ensure a greater net happiness across all people. To isolate out one aspect or implication of health care provision, without consideration for all the other implications, is simplistic. Nothing you have said demonstrates that your model includes the negative effects of non-redistribution or the positive effects of redistribution. Rather it appears you are cherry picking particular aspects, isolating them, and considering there effects as if the effects of those aspects were independent of all other possible effects of non-redistribution and redistribution.
Your accusations might hold more water if they contained arguments. Just saying "You're wrong and you haven't demonstrated anything" over and over again doesn't exactly cut it unless you explain why. If you can't come up with any counters that are better than this, I'd suggest quitting while you're ahead.

It is not a necessary implication, so far as I can see. Unless you can substantiate otherwise, is there some reason why I would just take your word for it?
Well to be honest, the more I read the more I actually am prepared to tell you to just take my word for it. I've already broken down subsidies just about as much as I can, and I remind you, your premise as stated is:
I'm not convinced this is the case. What evidence is there that we are actually sacrificing the nett happiness of any one person?

This means that if we were to go door to door and explain subsidies to everyone, offering my opinion and yours, the evidence that it would be "sacrificing the nett[sic] happiness of any one person?" would expose itself as soon as one person answered: "This makes me unhappy."

You can ask for evidence all you want, but if it's statistics and numbers you're after you're in the wrong place. I could care less about statistics: I'd wipe my ass with them even if they're on my side. I could dig up statistics to back up everything I could say and you could do the same and we'd just fling that each other like monkeys with typically substandard sanitation habits. When I say right and wrong aren't a matter of numbers, I mean what I say.

You suggested that ensuring health care would make poverty a career choice, yet it can only be a choice if there is some alternative.
No, I used the subsidization of grain products to illustrate some of the effects of subsidies. In a healthcare context, this means that the working citizens are obligated to maintain a certain amount of medical credit for the debt incurred by people who can't. Subsidized healthcare doesn't make for a career choice unless you happen to be a poorly paid motorcycle stuntman with no company health insurance.

"Career choice" is admittedly something of an exaggeration, albeit a necessary one. One doesn't make any profit on such a "career," he only manages to live with little or no effort.

If they would be poor regardless whether or not they can access health care due to government provisions, then it is not true that ensuring such access would make poverty a career choice, since it isnt a choice in either case. It's not pity, it's logic. It cannot be true that if the government ensures access to health care, those that would have been poor regardless of such provision, are suddenly choosing to be poor, even though in either case they actually cannot not be poor.
Somehow I think logic would be a tad easier to understand. Like some of the other things I've read from you this make no grammatical sense to me whatsoever. I can't even begin to pick out the concepts or suggestions you're trying to make to refute me.

If you're trying to say that people don't choose to be poor I understand your point, but like I said earlier if it's not that bad people won't mind so much. Help to the truly disadvantaged is something I'm sure plenty of you altruists will be on hand to help, but for the people who are able to work and pay their goddamn bills being poor should be like being in Siberia: it should be hell and he should be motivated to get out and stay out. I'd use another analogy to illustrate my point further, but as per usual I wouldn't be surprised if you just focused on the second half exclusively without trying to connect it to my premise.

What debate? Lotus Puppy made some statements, I didnt find that the arguments and information offered convinced me of the arguments, you offered some further information and arguments that does not do very much more to convince me. Either you can or you cannot substantiate your claims, either way I dont see it as a debate, I am simply giving those making arguments similar to Lotus Puppy's the chance to prove that there actually is some basis to the arguments that were offered. As for evidence, no, conjecture and evidence are not the same thing at all.
I didn't want to get you excited and think that I didn't have an answer toa ny of this, but this has already been dicussed above. Given all the work I've done trying to explain these things I'm frankly a bit exasperated in your refusal to see any relevance to any of this.

Almost humorously enough, when challenged about not creating any new arguments, you responded by not creating any new arguments. Saying I "haven't substantiated anything" when I've sat here and typed out reams of text on the moral and epistemic connotations of the subject at hand is curious, to say the least.

Your definition of just what 'substantiation' is also has yet to be defined. If it's numbers and statistics you want, best of luck. If it's philosophy, it's all already spelled out in front of you.

Suit yourself, although in fairness to you, I feel I should point out that you would get much further with logic and facts so far as convincing me is concerned.
What? I've presented logic and facts, and you've merely told me I'm wrong using vastly inferior, primarily emotion based arguments in the rare instances where you deign to answer beyond "you haven't substantiated anything." Logic and facts are what I traffic in; it should have been understood that when I described the story as an emotion-based argument that it wasn't one that I endorse. Again, I was defeating you with your own "logic."

My logic is unimpeachable. My arguments are presented in concise, explicit words. I mean what I say and any dictionary is sufficient to understand anything and everything I'm telling you. Your counters are a mess of run on sentences that lose meaning after ten words. Try again, Lepton.

No, I do not see how your lovely farming anecdote is even relevent. I can see how one might fallaciously claim that it is analogous, but in fact such a claim would be weak and based on a very lacklustre inductive argument.
Relevant, and it's pertinent because it shows the fallacy of spreading things around to different people. You don't see how it's relevant because you're not connecting the idea to it's pertinent context; i.e. subsidizing health care. You seem to have a penchant, as I've mentioned several times already, for addressing the latter half of my analogies completely, without connotating them to their greater meaning. When I talk about other subsidies, I'm attempting to substantiate my claim that subsidies suck by pointing out other examples of subsidies sucking.

If your next reply is something to the effect of "that's not pertinent," don't expect a reply. In fact, I think I can pretty safely say not to expect a response if I see it anywhere, unless it's followed promptly with an ethical justification as to why.

Bread and healthcare are not the same. Why would someone who can afford healthcare suddenly choose to forgo all the other luxeries their freedom from poverty brings, just so that on the offchance they get sick, they can get a subsidy on health care? They wouldnt. Health care access is not analogous to bread access. One is a daily need, the other is a very occasional need. Even if a person had access to the very best healthcare, they will probably still be inclined to eat. I do not see that access to healthcare will cause people to wait around on the side of the road forgoing items like food, because they can access health care. Bread and health care can be distinguished in such a way, that your analogy is completely without value.
*buries head in hands*

The forest for the trees....

I think the confusion probably stems from your attempted analogy. Clearly bread and health care can be distinguished so that to attempt to reason that because offering free bread might make people not work, the same result might stem from ensuring access to health care, is so absurd, when it is presented back to you, even you cannot work out how you considered them analogous. Simply put your bread analogy does not work.
Words fail me.

Aha, well I call bullshit, what makes it wrong so it would need to be magically right? You have not demonstrated that there is anything wrong regardless of the money value, you have not even suggested the axioms of the value system you are measuring right and wrong with.
The axioms of my value system are as follows:

Life is the root of value. Without life, value cannot exist because, simply put, you cant value anything while you're alive. Therefore, any moral stipulation you can make presupposes the fact that men--all men, hold their life as their greatest value because, simply put, we all have the choice to end it. Those who do not, value their life above everything else; even the very desire to stay alive solely to help others presupposes this basic fact.

A value, in broader terms, is something that which a person acts to gain and/or keep. One acheives value by virtue, the purpose of which is happiness.

* Don't mistake this for an anti-emotion viewpoint: for all I know you might [i]actually feel some sort of special acquaintance with other people; I dont know since I'm not you. What I mean to say with this is that emotions simply aren't methods of cognition, but they're still necessary and quite often productive. I don't cast any aspersions on eating or breathing by admitting that they are not tools for determining reality. The same applies to feeling.

The US has one a bit more competitive, and has arguably the best healthcare in the world.
The best? Only if you're loaded. Competition means better quality?

"They found that the United States spent 44 percent more on health care than Switzerland, the nation with the next highest per capita health care costs, in the year 2000. At the same time, Americans had fewer physician visits, and hospital stays were shorter compared with most other industrialized nations. The study suggests that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States. The results are published in the May/June 2003 edition of Health Affairs."

"The study also found that the United States spent 13 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GNP) on health care in 2000, which was considerably higher than other nations."

http://www.chiff.com/a/HLFH703cost.htm

US has the best emergency care system but that doesn't translate into better health among its population. American system focuses on curing, not on preventing which would be much cheaper and actually fix the health stats for the better.

The American Health Care system is a crock of crap.

Sure, if you work for a major corporation, or the government, you are given excellent health , dental, and vision insurance.

But...the average "blue collar" worker...we dont get crap.

If I have a toothache...its cheaper to get the tooth removed...than to spend the money to save it.

Extraction....100$.

crown and cap....1100$

If I get sick, and need to see a doctor....I pray for mild infection rather than a disease...thats only 50 dollars for the visit, and maybe 30 dollars for a prescription.

..and those are about the only options.

Maybe this is my liberal idealism speaking again, but I just dont see why anyone who works for a living, and pays taxes, should be given health insurance wich will greatly reduce the cost of medical/dental visits.

If I got cancer...I would die...couldnt afford the treatments.

How is this fair to me, or anyone else like me?

Im all for paying my fair share, but I also feel that I should be entitled to decent health coverage, as long as Im willing to pay for as much of the treatment as I can.
The rest..should either be waived..or picked up by the federal government.

Im sure many of you conservatives are already grabbing for your wallets to keep my dirty Liberal hands away from it...but, what if it were a voluntary system?

To be eligible for coverage, you would have to be willing to have a percentage of your income taken out for the "Health Fund"...if you choose not to donate..you cannot recieve benefits.
If you are willing..and need financial assistance for medical exspenses, and are a willing donor...you would be eligible.

I dunno...it just seems wrong that many Americans have to buy thier medical supplies and perscriptions from Canada, becuase we cant afford to buy them from our own country.

Its just wrong.

Where I come from (Denmark) about 55% of my income goes directly to the government, which then give me free education, healthcare and a lot of other things that hasn't got anything to do with this debate.

Personally I don't find it disturbing that I'm paying for other peoples visit to the hospitals. I actually love it, in a way I help other people get on with their lives even if they had experienced a horrible accident or perhaps just got a little too much to drink that other night.

I feel like that I am an active part of this country and I don't have to worry about if I drop dead (or allmost dead) in the streets with my walet in my hand, or else I would just have been left there in the street, getting no help. (okay, perhaps a bit exaggerated, but you get the point)

And I don't think that this affects the quality of healthcare. I think it improves. Because if we complain about something then it gets fixed allmost right away (well, it did, untill we got that lame new government, those right-wing people are not able to lead a country. This was a much better place when the Social-Democrats rule, in my oppinion :p )

I think that the people who are capable should support the society that they live in. That's the wealthy, the talented and the able. I want to live in a country where the poor have as much right to being treated as the wealthy. That's why I'm happy to pay my taxes, hopefully I won't have to visit the hospital very often, but I'm happy knowing that if its necessary it's there without having to worry about the financial aspects.

This is going to be fun.
I don't know how to respond to this. The nature of your response seems to indicate that you haven't the foggiest notion what a subsidy is.
No it doesnt, it indicates that so far as I can tell your comments were not relevent.

My example was something of a desperate stab at describing the concept as it didn't seem to get through the first time around. A subsidy, when carried out by the State, always involves a reallocation of labor or the product of that labor. When I talk about walking into your house and taking stuff away, I'm assuming in a radical instance that someone has been authorized to 'reallocate' those particular resources.
Radical instance...aha, probably explains how your comments were so irrelevent. Nothing in the premise 'the government should play a role in the distribution of health care to ensure access', requires any form of radicalism. My government redistributes resources through things such as subsidies all the time, including my own resources. No one yet has ever as a result of this redistribution (and the subsidies it relates to) walked into my house and taken all my cool shit. It just doesnt happen like that. Now obviously hyperbole can make a perfectly reasonable situation look very worrisome, that is why your hyperbolic comments were utterly irrelevent.


The very fact that you address the specifics of the argument rather than the concept it denotes, the concept that I've been trying to explain for the last two posts speaks volumes as to the futility of any further attempts on my part to break down the issue any further. Call it charity, but I feel oddly compelled to continue anyway.
Nonesense. You are simply being stubborn. Nothing so dramatic as you propose results from health care subsidies. Using such hyperbolic examples to establish that people who recieve subsidies are unhappy as a result, is simply a strawman...whyever would I take such comments seriously?

Wait, what? That makes no sense. You're telling me that it's invalid purely on virtue of the fact that it's a generalization? This sentence gets a little confusing towards the end.
No I am not telling you that. I am telling you that generalisations are generally somewhat 'iffy'. In any particular case unless the generalisation can be shown to actually be of some utility, then it's worth less than the characters it takes to type it.
You stated we could all assume a particular generalisation. You have yet to show why we should. I happen to know people who do recieve subsidies, their happiness doesnt appear particularly effected. I also know people (such as myself) whose resources are redistributed in order to pay for subsidies, and their happiness doesnt appear particularly effected. So why on earth should I accept your generalisation when it appears to conflict with reality?

If you want to know what is meant, look it up. I use words as they're defined and I'm not here to explain to you what words mean.
Well I do not accept that all subsidies are ceaseless. In the case of health it is however likely that resources will (if the government takes a role in redistributing resources for the purposes of providing health care) for the forseeable future continue to be redistributed.

A subsidy--any subsidy-- is a permanent obligation of the State and thus, the reallocation of labor or the product of that labor is necessary--by definition to the very idea of a State subsidy, regardless of whether its right or not.
Aha, and you have yet to demonstrate that in the particular case of health care, it is not right. It might be that it isnt right, but so far you have not posted anything that establishes that it is not right.

If you plan to set up a subsidy or favor setting one up, one can assume that such a policy would want to be a permanent obligation, hence the ceaseless part. Some people benefit; farmers get to cash fat government subsidy checks. Oftentimes, they get the same amount [or more] for growing less.
Farmers are irrelevent, I see a health professional when I need health care, not a farmer.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood, I may have led you on with something I didn't mean. I was attempting to counter the 'happiness' issue with its own logic.

Typically, the theory of 'economic rights,' i.e. the idea that people have a right to certain things like healthcare or food or money or what have you stems from an epistemological school of thought that teaches us that happiness and pain are the benchmarks by which we are to gauge moral action. By which they mean to say an action is judged as "good" or "bad" by the amount of people it benefits. The idea is to "maximize happiness" since this school of thought contends that happiness is the measure of virtue.

Applied to this topic that logic tells us that nationalized, tax funded healthcare is moral because it generates the greatest amount of happiness/well being and so forth.
That is one possible model for justifying health care access. However unless it was one you were arguing, how did it become relevent here. Certainly I have never suggested that such a model is necessary to justify provision of health care. I do not see that this notion has been posited, so why counter it? Surely it would be better to demonstrate that your own arguments are sustainable, rather than to argue against something no one is actually suggesting? :confused:

I reject this notion completely, and I'm more than certain you disagree.
Where do you get these ideas?

Happiness, I contend, is the purpose of virtue, because virtues are actions enacted to acheive material values. By material values I mean values that can exist and be defined in a rational sense; a 'bond' or 'feeling' in most conventional morality prevents this, insisting that we're all 'in it together' and so forth. A 'human bond' or a 'feeling of brotherhood' is an emotion. To put it bluntly, reason, being my only means of discerning the nature of reality, means that it should be the guiding factor when I make moral pronouncements. Hence, Objectivist.*
Right, but I'm not the one who raised the issue of happiness. I thought you were arguing against subsidies because it made people unhappy, now you apparently do not care about happiness because it is not a material value...how did you expect to convince me with an argument based on a value, that you personally dont believe...? If you dont believe arguments based on non-material values (such as happiness) I dont see how you expect to convince others.... :confused:

Frankly, I don't trust any of the rest of you bastards any farther than I can throw you. I'm not prepared to put my faith or make an investment in some random dude.
Hey, my parents were married... :mad: ...


...perhaps you are thinking of my older sister... ;)

Your accusations might hold more water if they contained arguments. Just saying "You're wrong and you haven't demonstrated anything" over and over again doesn't exactly cut it unless you explain why. If you can't come up with any counters that are better than this, I'd suggest quitting while you're ahead.
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing something. In fact I am simply trying to get the bottom of the arguments being presented. If I were actually trying to establish an argument, you would have a point. I'm not sure why you think I am trying to establish an argument, I kinda thought all the questions might have been a clue to what I am doing...specifically trying to examine your arguments (initially I was attempting to get to the heart of what Lotus Puppy was saying, but you volunteered a response to my questions directed at Lotus, and so now I'm attempting to figure out what the rational behind your arguments are).

Well to be honest, the more I read the more I actually am prepared to tell you to just take my word for it. I've already broken down subsidies just about as much as I can, and I remind you, your premise as stated is:


This means that if we were to go door to door and explain subsidies to everyone, offering my opinion and yours, the evidence that it would be "sacrificing the nett happiness of any one person?" would expose itself as soon as one person answered: "This makes me unhappy."
Er no, it means I am not convinced that nett happiness would be reduced. However now you seem to be contending that your view is only material values matter, so I dont even know why you raised the whole happiness business.
Evidently your theory regarding measuing nett happiness is flawed. In order to ascertain the differential of nett happiness from one model of health care provision to another, it would be necessary to know the nett happiness under both (or all if more than 2 are considered) models. Simply knowing that one person is unhappy, doesnt prove that there is less happiness than would result from use of another system (for instance the other system might result in the person being more unhappy, or greater numbers of unhappy people).

Any which way, if you are no longer making an argument based on non-material values such as happiness, it kind of all seems a bit irrelevent. :confused:


You can ask for evidence all you want, but if it's statistics and numbers you're after you're in the wrong place. I could care less about statistics: I'd wipe my ass with them even if they're on my side. I could dig up statistics to back up everything I could say and you could do the same and we'd just fling that each other like monkeys with typically substandard sanitation habits. When I say right and wrong aren't a matter of numbers, I mean what I say.
It's really up to you how you substantiate your arguments. How would I know the best way to establish that what you are arguing is true...if I knew that, I'd know your argument and wouldnt need to ask you about it... :confused:

No, I used the subsidization of grain products to illustrate some of the effects of subsidies. In a healthcare context, this means that the working citizens are obligated to maintain a certain amount of medical credit for the debt incurred by people who can't. Subsidized healthcare doesn't make for a career choice unless you happen to be a poorly paid motorcycle stuntman with no company health insurance.
The only illustration your grain analogy offered was that it would lead to a career choice by rewarding poverty and punishing richness, I found this not to be a plausable analogy. As originally premised your grain analogy did not so far as I can tell state, imply or illustrate that working citizens are obliged to maintain certain amounts of health care credit, so much as it implied that the premise bread subsidies make people who could work not work, was applicable to health care. I do not think that it is applicable to health care.

I do not know what you mean about obliged to retain medical credit. Are you suggesting that individuals would need to run around with spare health credits in their pocket in case they saw a poor ill person? I dont think this is what you mean...perhaps you mean that it will be necessary to redistribute some people's resources to make them available to pay for the subsidies?

"Career choice" is admittedly something of an exaggeration, albeit a necessary one. One doesn't make any profit on such a "career," he only manages to live with little or no effort.
Not necessary, but irrelevent. A poor analogy because the two cases of bread and health care are distinct in a way that the effects of bread subsidies are not so far as you had explained them, applicable to health care subsidies. Health care subsidies will not allow a person to live with little effort.

Somehow I think logic would be a tad easier to understand. Like some of the other things I've read from you this make no grammatical sense to me whatsoever. I can't even begin to pick out the concepts or suggestions you're trying to make to refute me.
Actually so far as I can tell the paragraph is legible. Either way if you no longer wish to argue that the effect of bread subsidies were premising was applicable to health subsidies (that people would choose to be poor because the subsidies exist), then it is not relevent.

If you're trying to say that people don't choose to be poor I understand your point, but like I said earlier if it's not that bad people won't mind so much.
I was not stating either way whether or not people choose to be poor. You premised that health subsidies were analogous to bread subsidies in the sense that people if they could get bread subsidies might choose to be poor since they will be fed anyway. I was not convinced anyone would choose to be poor simply because of health subsidies. You appeared to believe that my objection to the idea that people would choose to be poor because of health subsidies was some kind of emotive argument along the lines of 'people dont choose to be poor'. Your original premise required that health care subsidies increase the number of poor people by causing people who otherwise would not be poor, to choose to be poor. I pointed out I did not believe this was the case, and you responded by suggesting you dont care either way...I was simply pointing out that if health care subsidies didnt make people choose to be poor, the argument 'health care subsidies makes people choose to be poor' cannot be true.

Help to the truly disadvantaged is something I'm sure plenty of you altruists will be on hand to help,
Which of us untrustable bastards is going to volunteer to be the altruists?

but for the people who are able to work and pay their goddamn bills being poor should be like being in Siberia: it should be hell and he should be motivated to get out and stay out. I'd use another analogy to illustrate my point further, but as per usual I wouldn't be surprised if you just focused on the second half exclusively without trying to connect it to my premise.
Again this is irrelevent. If people can afford to pay their bills, why would we be giving them health care subsidies intended for those who simply cannot afford to pay their health care bills? That's like suggesting lotteries dont work because if they pay out on all tickets, whether they are the winning numbers or not, they will pay out more than they take in....well certainly, but lotteries dont work on the premise of paying out on non-winning tickets, and health care subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay their health care bills do not operate on the premise that those who can afford to pay their health care bills will be receiving the subsidies...

I didn't want to get you excited and think that I didn't have an answer toa ny of this, but this has already been dicussed above. Given all the work I've done trying to explain these things I'm frankly a bit exasperated in your refusal to see any relevance to any of this.
Well you can have full points for effort...it's effectiveness you seem to be falling down on...

Almost humorously enough, when challenged about not creating any new arguments, you responded by not creating any new arguments. Saying I "haven't substantiated anything" when I've sat here and typed out reams of text on the moral and epistemic connotations of the subject at hand is curious, to say the least.
What is humerous about someone who is not intending to make an argument not making an argument? Are you aware that I am not attempting to make an argument?
As for reams and reams, quality and quantity are not synomonous.

Your definition of just what 'substantiation' is also has yet to be defined. If it's numbers and statistics you want, best of luck. If it's philosophy, it's all already spelled out in front of you.
Any sound deductive argument will do. Failing that a strong inductive argument would be nice.

What? I've presented logic and facts, and you've merely told me I'm wrong using vastly inferior, primarily emotion based arguments in the rare instances where you deign to answer beyond "you haven't substantiated anything."
I dont think I have told you that you are wrong, at least not in the sense that you seem to be implying. If I knew that you were wrong, I wouldnt bother continuing. You might be right, however at this point I am unconvinced. I dont currently share your opinion, however if you can convince me, I'll change my mind. I wouldnt waste my and your time giving you the opportunity to meet my objections and further clarify your arguments if I already was of the opinion that you are wrong. You really do seem to think that I am arguing something...since I am not arguing anything (but rather attempting to examine and understand your argument, which includes giving you the chance to counter any objections your argument raises for me), it's not surprising the belief that I am arguing something might result in some confusion. If I were attempting to argue something (rather than ascertain how convincing I find your argument), the balance between questions and statements in my posts, would be far less weighted in favour of questions.

I have no idea where you get this idea about my comments being 'emotion based'. I didnt bring happiness up, you did. The objection that 'if people have no choice about being poor with or without health subsidies, it cannot be true that health subsidies are causing them to choose to be poor' was a point of logic, not emotion. I fail to see why it is difficult to understand that if someone cannot choose to not be poor, it is not true that X (whatever you want X to be including, but not limited to health care) causes them to choose to be poor. In fact the argument form remains valid if you remove the word 'poor' and replace it with 'green martians from outer space'. Nothing emotional about it, simple logic.

Logic and facts are what I traffic in; it should have been understood that when I described the story as an emotion-based argument that it wasn't one that I endorse. Again, I was defeating you with your own "logic."
No you were not. The notion that I am impressed with, or tend to argue in 'emotive terms' is a mistake on your part, mostly brought about by your attempt to suggest that health care subsidies will cause people to choose to be poor.

My logic is unimpeachable.
Mmm, I dont think so (big surprise there huh? ;) )

My arguments are presented in concise, explicit words. I mean what I say and any dictionary is sufficient to understand anything and everything I'm telling you. Your counters are a mess of run on sentences that lose meaning after ten words. Try again, Lepton.
Your arguments largly consist of erroneous analogies that you now appear to be trying to disown, and something about happiness that you also now appear to be trying to disown.... :confused:

Relevant, and it's pertinent because it shows the fallacy of spreading things around to different people.
No it doesnt. If there was an argument 'redistribution and subsidies are always good' your farming analogy would have been relevent. However the fact that not all redistribution and subsidies are good, does not prove that no restribution or subsidies are good.

You don't see how it's relevant because you're not connecting the idea to it's pertinent context; i.e. [i]subsidizing health care. You seem to have a penchant, as I've mentioned several times already, for addressing the latter half of my analogies completely, without connotating them to their greater meaning. When I talk about other subsidies, I'm attempting to substantiate my claim that subsidies suck by pointing out other examples of subsidies sucking.
Which is as relevent and useful as trying to argue that every person is a murderer, by bringing up some examples of murderers. I have never argued that all subsidies are good. So to prove that some subsidies are not good, doesnt prove anything relevent to this discussion. If your analogies demonstrated that there were similarities between the problematic examples you have raised and health care subsidies, such that we could expect that problems arising in your examples could be assumed to arise in regard to health care subsidies, that might be useful. But randomly picking 'subsidies gone bad' does not prove that all subsidies are bad. In fact such random pickings could be defeated by a single example of one subsidy that wasnt bad. If you wish to argue by analogy, then the thing you are claiming is analogous must be materially similar in some respect that would lead us to expect the problems arising in the examples would arise in health care. We have already established (I hope) that unlike the grain example people are not all going to decide to be bums on the off chance they will become ill and get a health care subsidy. If you can demonstrate the material similarities between the farming story and health care subsidies (ie some aspect/s present in both cases that would lead us to expect that what is problematic with the farming subsidies would also occur with health care subsidies), then it would be relevent.

If your next reply is something to the effect of "that's not pertinent," don't expect a reply. In fact, I think I can pretty safely say not to expect a response if I see it anywhere, unless it's followed promptly with an ethical justification as to why.
Why would I be positing a justification, what would I be justifying? Wouldnt I need something to justify before I attempted to justify it? Can you really not see that in order to examine the robustness of an argument, it is not necessary to posit some alternative argument? Or are you still convinced that I am attempting to make an argument? :confused:

*buries head in hands*

The forest for the trees....


Words fail me.
Apparently so.... :p

The axioms of my value system are as follows:

Life is the root of value. Without life, value cannot exist because, simply put, you cant value anything while you're alive. Therefore, any moral stipulation you can make presupposes the fact that men--all men, hold their life as their greatest value because, simply put, we all have the choice to end it. Those who do not, value their life above everything else; even the very desire to stay alive solely to help others presupposes this basic fact.

A value, in broader terms, is something that which a person acts to gain and/or keep. One acheives value by virtue, the purpose of which is happiness.

Don't mistake this for an anti-emotion viewpoint: for all I know you might ctually feel some sort of special acquaintance with other people; I dont know since I'm not you. What I mean to say with this is that emotions simply aren't methods of cognition, but they're still necessary and quite often productive. I don't cast any aspersions on eating or breathing by admitting that they are not tools for determining reality. The same applies to feeling.
Fine and well, but I do not see that how 'health care subsidies are wrong' follows from those values.
That doesnt mean that it doesnt follow from those values with some steps in between of course.

I think you need to just throw out the idea that I am trying to argue something. Actually the opposite is occuring. I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I am in fact giving you an opportunity to convince me of something. That's why my comments are objections and questions; I'm not trying to establish an argument or make a point.

Is it really inconcievable that someone who might not currently agree with you, is willing to consider your argument/point of view? How can I do that if instead of raising my objections to your arguments so you can address them, I keep the objections to myself and simply consider your argument is wrong because the objections have not been addressed?

Well if the system is priced out of the reach of "just about everyone", then the overall "quality" is poor?

The following link may be a tad outdated because it is based on stats up to 2000:

Best in the World or Just the Most Expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)
I'm not sure why you sent that link over as it says what I said, that the US system is increadably expensive. However, your article did NOT address quality of the work performed. For most just about anything, from drugs to procedures, the US does lead the way.

We just can't AFORD the damn thing. Your point is taken though.

You asserted a right existed, you can hardly expect me to tell you where the right you are suggesting derives from. If you believe such a right exists, what kind of right is it, and from what does this right derive?
Let's save this one for last. It's the only intelligible question in here, and thus, it will be my only intelligible answer.



What do you mean private insitutions. I pay for person X to get their primary education, what recompense am I likely to be able to negotiate out of X now that thanks to my contributions, X is a productive member of society? The only reasonable recompense appears to be, to expect X to do the same thing I did...contribute according his or her capacity.

I can think of things for you. It is assumed that education will create a smart person, thus having a good job, and thus paying taxes. I myself don't agree with this circular logic, but I do agree that it is an example.
BTW, are you a Brit? There's no particular reason for my asking. I just love the word recompense. It has a ring to it, doesn't it?
Irrelevent. The VA is not the only government owned health provider in the world, nor the only government owned health care provider that operates alongside private health care providers.

Yet you haven't answered why the VA is hardly used.
Nothing you have said convinces me that competition cannot result in an equilibrium, in which margins are too low to encourage risk taking and innovations.
[/quote
Sweetheart, if margins are too low, innovation is at its best. That's because they have little choice other than to innovate. Why? Because if they don't, a competitor comes along with a better idea, and can earn higher margins.
[quote]Not every human being can control where they are going in life. Some human beings can control much more than where they are going in life.

True, though the latter catagory may be found mostly in communist dictatorships. Otherwise, everyone has a choice.
I am not talking about free money. I am talking about government intervention in the distribution of health care services. As for your statement about Medicare, I doubt very much that it is dependent soley on age for its justification.

When LBJ signed away to his "Great Society" program, he intended Medicare to finance the elderly's health. While they often have special needs, the original program did not even come with means tests. But even if there were there, imagine how content some poor granny is to sit iin the hospital, knowing that the government is picking up the tab. Did she ever dream of saving enough for healthcare? Even if she didn't, did she feel obligated to work part-time? No. She was entitled. She had no reason to look after herself, or to be productive, because she lived on free money. She barely needs to pay a dime.

Right, that would perhaps be relevent if universal health care were the only alternative to 'free market' distribution.

It is in many societies.
So you raised equality because you believe that there is not a wide range of possibilities between universal health care, and 'free market' distribution? :confused:

There is always a wide range with market-based solutions, of course. But it's great to know that something better than what you've got exists, and to strive for it. Why strive for better when no one around you is better?
What? Who do you mean by cavemen? What beginning? I tend to think these cavemen comments are ill-concieved at best. :confused:
If the cavemen struggled for equality, we'd still be chasing wooly mamouths down clifs and living til sixteen.

Now, about that "right" thing. As I see it, I prescribe to the John Locke model that there are three rights: life, liberty, and property. Life is simply the right to live. Liberty should ensure that no one else has the right to stop you unless you are infringing on their rights. The most relevant here is property. Man is entitled to nothing, but he doesn't need to be. There's no theft of his property, or his talent, or produce. He shares these gifts as he pleases. Otherwise, it is theft. But if this confuses you, remember this: while man can share his gifts anyway he wants, there is no incentive for him to share it some ways, like for free. For the most part, he enters into a contract to share his gifts for compensation by like minded people.
Just think of modern society today. Is it right to kill someone? How about to take their home? Okay, bad example. The US decided it can do it as it pleases. Fortunatly, few find it right. If these rights are taken away, as they just were in the Supreme Court, then dictatorships can rise easily.

The best? Only if you're loaded. Competition means better quality?

"They found that the United States spent 44 percent more on health care than Switzerland, the nation with the next highest per capita health care costs, in the year 2000. At the same time, Americans had fewer physician visits, and hospital stays were shorter compared with most other industrialized nations. The study suggests that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States. The results are published in the May/June 2003 edition of Health Affairs."

"The study also found that the United States spent 13 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GNP) on health care in 2000, which was considerably higher than other nations."

http://www.chiff.com/a/HLFH703cost.htm

US has the best emergency care system but that doesn't translate into better health among its population. American system focuses on curing, not on preventing which would be much cheaper and actually fix the health stats for the better.

It would. Prevention is unattractive for its short term costs. But for the past century, curing has been the way that worked. When modern medicine started, diseases were the main concern. Now, it is evolutionary problems that we can see happening, such as obesity. People are great learning the hard way, and I have no doubt that that will be the case. It is already happening, and it's being aided by technology. I've heard (though regretably, can't confirm), that McDonald's is testing a computer on some of its employees that make reccomendations for doctor's visits if, say, they have a funny cough or have a funny gait. The government also needs to update its programs if it desires to keep them. But they, like all governments, are very slow.

Debatable.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm

It's because people measure wealth relative to the other guy. If they measured absolute wealth, they'd be in for a shock. I just heard a study the other day, actually, that people are happier being wealthy in relative terms than in absolute ones.

Indeed, like a police force to provide him security to have his ideas, the utility infrastructure to provide him power and other necessities that allow him the opportunity to create his ideas and so forth. The compensation he offers is typically known as taxes.

I agree with you only for law enforcement, for that is a special case. A government holds a monopoly on the use of force because, if it doesn't, society just can't function. A police force may be more efficient in the private sector, but then again, this is the only case where the necessity of nationalization outweighs the efficiency of the private sector.
They're not actually. The brain drain reversed itself a couple of years ago.
Okay. I'd suspect it'd be medical researchers, considering that they have more autonomy, but I don't know. Now, in an ideal world, there'd be no brain drain at all, as Canada could actually afford to pay doctors what they were worth.

No. Necessity does. Competition is a great spur to necessity, I'll admit, but certainly not the be-all and end-all.

Very few things in life are necessary to have if you can't see the other guy getting it. If something does come along, write me a letter. I'm sure it does, but not often, and not on an accelarating trajectory, unlike competition. Ever wondered why you can't keep up with technology? I'll just tell you that your parents rejoiced for a few years back when touch dial phones were introduced.
I'm perfectly happy with capitalism for most things. But for things like healthcare, where the invisible hand becomes a closed fist because demand is infinite (you don't pay, you/your family members die) it's time for the state to step in. There are many health services which are simply too costly to provide to the poor, the expertise and technology required mean that your bottom end cost is higher than the poor person can afford without assistance. The objectivist and libertarian viewpoints on these issues seem to be either the flat denial of "this wouldn't happen" or the wishful thinking of "private charity would help out", both of which fly in the face of reality. (Statistics have shown that people tend to donate to charity as a percentage of their income -- a percentage that tends to remain the same regardless as to whether their income grows or shrinks -- and for the vast majority, that percentage is 0.)

In a no-holds-barred capitalist health-care system, hospitals can arbitrarily set the price point at the absolute maximum you can afford, including credit and other leverage, and you have no choice but to pay it -- or suffer. It wouldn't be 50,000 for a heart surgery, it would be "what can you sign over"

Yeah, you can comparison shop, but there are a limited number of surgical hours available, an unlimited number of patients, and a very strong compulsion to purchase as soon as possible. What holds them in check right now are government regulations and competition from nationalized systems such as in Canada.[/QUOTE]
There is a limited supply of everything in the world right now. A person just has to make the most of it. And often they do.
And as I said earlier, I disagree about your price binge theory. HMOs will consolidate competing for more customers, and thus lower premiums. Capacity will build if the cost is too high. The best way to do that, of course, is cheap: digitalize records! I don't know why it's taking so long. I do know, however, that the government can't do it at all. The VA Records Depository in St. Louis is five stories of filling cabinets for every patient. Finding the right one takes some time, to say the least. Oh, and they get sloppy about the alphabetical order part.

Healthcare should not be free for everyone. Universal healthcare drives away competition and the quality of healthcare.


Where is your evidence for this ludicrous claim?

I am doctor in the NHS, and have seen some changes in the way that the NHS is administered that are designed to introduce competition. It's been a mess. The difficulty with this is measuring outcomes, so you can decide who has beaten the competition. This is difficult with surgery (the easiest speciality where outcomes can be measured) and nigh on impossible with specialities like psychiatry and my own discipline, General Practice.

Example: It seems obvious that a general surgeon with a lower post-operative death rate is a better surgeon than one with a higher post-operative death rate, doesn't it? But what if the former was only prepared to undertake surgery on the fitest patients most likely to survive a procedure, whereas the other was prepared to operate on anyone if there was a good chance that it might save their life? the more conservative surgeon may well be doing less for his patients in the long run, but he'll look good in the league tables. Another, perhaps better, example is the position of a national centre of excellence for heart surgery in the UK. They performed quite poorly in league tables, because they got all the cases that nobody else had the skills to deal with and so they encounter more complications.

In the health threads I have seen people say that private hospitals in the UK are better than NHS hospitals. I do not think this is the case. They are smarter, quieter, less busy and cleaner (since the cleaning services in NHS hospitals were tendered to the PRIVATE sector) and full of nice middle class patients who don't abuse, threaten or vomit on staff :) Patients also get seen by consultants (most of who also have NHS posts). However, the standard of medical cover overnight and at weekends is significantly below that of an NHS hospital being a few "resident medical officers" the equivalent of SHOs and registrars (quite junior grades) in NHS hospitals, whereas in the NHS hospitals you will have Senior and Speciality Registrars resident. Also, private hospitals are not generally recognised as providing training posts for docs, so the medics they do have have either failed to progress in their career or are earning a quick buck with no structured educational input.

I also saw people say that state run medicine is more expensive. Not so - their accounts departments don't have to deal with bill chasing and admin. It's notable that since an "internal market" was introduced in the NHS there has been an increasing ratio of admin to clinical staff.

I fished out a paper from the Institute of Fiscal Studies called "How Much Would it Cost to Increase UK Health Spending to the European Union Average?"
There was an interesting bar chart showing what proportion of GDP was spent on health care by the 15 member states in 1998 (it also shows what proportion of that was public sector and what was private sector).

You can see from the chart that the only European countries that spend the same or less of their GDP on health than the UK (6.8%) are Luxembourg (6.0%) and Ireland (6.8%). Spain manages 7.0%, Sweden 7.9%, Greece 8.4%, France 9.3% and Germany 10.3%

http://photos.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/92394/cat/500/page/1

The text immediately before this also that "the USA is an even bigger spender, with almost 13% of its national income going to healthcare."

So there you have it, State owned healthcare: cheap and effective!!

Zagat, I'm done with you. If you don't understand the ideas I've presented by now, no attempt on my part to explain them any further will ever succeed. All you seem to be interested in doing is saying "that's not relevant" or "you're not substantiating anything" over and over again , seemingly purely on virtue of the fact that I'm the one whos saying it.

Furthermore, your admission that you are "not attempting to make an argument" speaks volumes to the fact that any debate with you is pointless, since 'debate' appears to be another one of the many concepts to which you remain wholly ignorant. You seem to be plenty interested in telling me I'm "not substantiating anything" without bothering to point out why my observations are not valid "substance."

If my analogies are flawed, it should be very easy to explain [i]why. You don't seem that interested in doing this in most cases, although I've noticed a few half-assed attempts.

If you want to count this as a victory, suit yourself. I have better things to do with my time than to keep re-explaining myself to someone who fails to comprehend any single word or thought that comes out of my mouth. You can't even [i]spell half of the words you're attacking me with.

It's because people measure wealth relative to the other guy. If they measured absolute wealth, they'd be in for a shock. I just heard a study the other day, actually, that people are happier being wealthy in relative terms than in absolute ones.
If you can find it, I'd certainly be interested. Without having seen it though, I have three comments:
1. That doesn't jibe with my personal experience.
2. That increasingly doesn't jibe with the trends we're seeing today. We've left the 80's behind finally and many people are starting to realize that beating the other guy doesn't matter if you already have enough.
3. What sad, sad people.

I agree with you only for law enforcement, for that is a special case. A government holds a monopoly on the use of force because, if it doesn't, society just can't function. A police force may be more efficient in the private sector, but then again, this is the only case where the necessity of nationalization outweighs the efficiency of the private sector.
This hinges on the libertarian argument that the private sector is almost always more efficient than the public sector. I'd have to disagree with that, and contend instead that the real argument should be that monopolies are almost always less efficient than competitors. There is nothing that says a government must operate as a monopoly in any sector.

Okay. I'd suspect it'd be medical researchers, considering that they have more autonomy, but I don't know. Now, in an ideal world, there'd be no brain drain at all, as Canada could actually afford to pay doctors what they were worth.I didn't say the brain drain had stopped. I said it had reversed. Other than that, I totally agree, and go on to further say that in an ideal world, there'd be no need for doctors in the first place as nobody would get sick. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, so we have to deal with what is actually here.

Very few things in life are necessary to have if you can't see the other guy getting it. If something does come along, write me a letter. I'm sure it does, but not often, and not on an accelarating trajectory, unlike competition.Remember that we're in a discussion about health-care here. If there was ever an industry where necessity is the mother.. this is it.

Ever wondered why you can't keep up with technology? I'll just tell you that your parents rejoiced for a few years back when touch dial phones were introduced.Don't put your limitations on me. ;)

There is a limited supply of everything in the world right now. A person just has to make the most of it. And often they do. And as I said earlier, I disagree about your price binge theory. HMOs will consolidate competing for more customers, and thus lower premiums. Capacity will build if the cost is too high. The best way to do that, of course, is cheap: digitalize records!I'd agree with you if this were some other sector where demand was also limited. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case with health-care. You cannot choose not to buy if the price doesn't suit you. If some HMO offers their services for less, they would quickly find that they run out of supply and so have to re-jack the prices. Proof of this is evident now in the American system with so many uninsured.

I think this is a point where we may have to agree to disagree, as we're essentially playing "What if" here. However, I'll try to draw an analogy to another point that maybe you haven't considered.

You've mentioned you're a libertarian, so I assume you believe that force and threat of injury or death is not a legitimate way to make gains, correct?
Yet what is a hospital or doctor doing if not relying on the threat of death to make their gains? If a person who is ill makes an offer to pay that covers the costs the doctor would incur, can the doctor legitimately demand more payment before they'll provide the services that will save the patient? If they do, are they any different from a mugger who demands payment in money or injury because you chanced to walk into his alley?

You've agreed already that police services are a special case where the necessity of nationalization may be more important than the efficiency of one privately operated. I would suggest that, due to the moral and economic reasons above, plus due to the threat of contagion, health care is a second special case. (Personally, I also feel that education is a third such case, and that some social welfare is legitimate, but those are separate discussions)

I don't know why it's taking so long. I do know, however, that the government can't do it at all. The VA Records Depository in St. Louis is five stories of filling cabinets for every patient. Finding the right one takes some time, to say the least. Oh, and they get sloppy about the alphabetical order part.One might suggest that the difficulty the VA is having comes not because they are not private, but because too many other places are and the citizenry doesn't recognize reasonable healthcare as a basic right.

Zagat, I'm done with you. If you don't understand the ideas I've presented by now, no attempt on my part to explain them any further will ever succeed. All you seem to be interested in doing is saying "that's not relevant" or "you're not substantiating anything" over and over again , seemingly purely on virtue of the fact that I'm the one whos saying it.

Furthermore, your admission that you are "not attempting to make an argument" speaks volumes to the fact that any debate with you is pointless, since 'debate' appears to be another one of the many concepts to which you remain wholly ignorant. You seem to be plenty interested in telling me I'm "not substantiating anything" without bothering to point out why my observations are not valid "substance."

If my analogies are flawed, it should be very easy to explain [i]why. You don't seem that interested in doing this in most cases, although I've noticed a few half-assed attempts.

If you want to count this as a victory, suit yourself. I have better things to do with my time than to keep re-explaining myself to someone who fails to comprehend any single word or thought that comes out of my mouth. You can't even [i]spell half of the words you're attacking me with.

You are way too good. Those were my thoughts, exactly. Though admittedly, he just wouldn't leave you alone.

You are way too good. Those were my thoughts, exactly. Though admittedly, he just wouldn't leave you alone.
Well, he's not obligated to leave me alone. Technically speaking, I was the one who initiated debate. The part I find curious, however, is his insistence on continuing said "debate" without introducing any moral pronouncements to challenge mine. Especially interesting was the fact that, when pressed, he still saw no reason why it might be necessary to denote just what 'substantiation' is. Most people usually mean statistics when they use that word, but I don't traffic in numbers; I deal with right and wrong.

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused at the attempts to deconstruct my analogies as 'irrelevent'[sic]. He asks for 'substantiation,' and when I invoke examples explaining the concept of subsidies and the moral implications of said concept, he just asks for 'substantiaion' again. It's like trying to talk to a broken record. I've explained the concept no less than three times and he systematically refuses to apply these concepts to his thinking.

If you can call it that.

If you can find it, I'd certainly be interested. Without having seen it though, I have three comments:
1. That doesn't jibe with my personal experience.
2. That increasingly doesn't jibe with the trends we're seeing today. We've left the 80's behind finally and many people are starting to realize that beating the other guy doesn't matter if you already have enough.
3. What sad, sad people.
For our purposes, let's agree to disagree. However, your arguement and mine both hinges on this basic philosophy. However, I personally believe that material things are comfort. Comfort is good to have. But it's not happiness. Happiness is your job to create.

This hinges on the libertarian argument that the private sector is almost always more efficient than the public sector. I'd have to disagree with that, and contend instead that the real argument should be that monopolies are almost always less efficient than competitors. There is nothing that says a government must operate as a monopoly in any sector.

A monopoly may exist, but only if it pleases everyone. Of course, it can't. Consumers will look for more bang for their buck, and investors will try to provide it. Don't believe me? Despite Microsoft being deemed as a monopoly, there were forces before hand that were breaking it up, such as the creation of Linux. Today, there are several browsers that are developed that, fortunatly, are much better than either Internet Explorer or Netscape. I use Firefox.
This may seem irrelevant, but it is not. It illustrates how monopolies can fall over time. The government is the only monopoly that can preserve itself by backing its legitimacy with force. If it allows competition, however, it still acts as if it were a monopoly with great resources. Therefore, no one uses public health care. Those that do have my utmost sympathies.
I didn't say the brain drain had stopped. I said it had reversed. Other than that, I totally agree, and go on to further say that in an ideal world, there'd be no need for doctors in the first place as nobody would get sick. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, so we have to deal with what is actually here.

You may very well be right. I just want to check. I don't believe it to be possible.
Remember that we're in a discussion about health-care here. If there was ever an industry where necessity is the mother.. this is it.

That was only in the beginning, back when they realized ginseng and leeches couldn't cure everything. I was young then :p .
But that organic necessity of today just can't be tapped into because of regulations. Take Edward Jenner, who tested his smallpox virus on a very brave boy. Could that happen today? No. He'd have to sign a volunteer form and a disclaimer, health waiver, and then wait a few years for some guy to review it. I'm not arguing that it was right or wrong. I'm just arguing that breackneck innovation occured because of the few regulations, unlike today.

I'd agree with you if this were some other sector where demand was also limited. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case with health-care. You cannot choose not to buy if the price doesn't suit you. If some HMO offers their services for less, they would quickly find that they run out of supply and so have to re-jack the prices. Proof of this is evident now in the American system with so many uninsured.

I have a different theory. The HMOs find it impossible to lower premiums because it currently makes no business sense with these regulations. In addition, health service workers charge more because of the liquidity pumped in by the government. If both were gone, HMOs would be free to lower premiums. However, I would say that things may get worse in the transition period.

You've mentioned you're a libertarian, so I assume you believe that force and threat of injury or death is not a legitimate way to make gains, correct?
Yet what is a hospital or doctor doing if not relying on the threat of death to make their gains? If a person who is ill makes an offer to pay that covers the costs the doctor would incur, can the doctor legitimately demand more payment before they'll provide the services that will save the patient? If they do, are they any different from a mugger who demands payment in money or injury because you chanced to walk into his alley?

Finally, a step away from the usual drivel I here. Thanks. I know now that you know what you are talking about, and I must admit it took me a while to craft a reply. Anyhow, the doctor can do whatever the hell he pleases, and can get away with it. But don't think for a second that it will be easy for him. The insurer does not want to pay extra, and so will fight for a patient in this situation. The patient's family will be outraged, and if the treatment is somehow attached to a contract, legal action may result. That is probably more likely than not, considering that there is always a contract with an insurer, and there'd probably be some form of contract for long term treatment. That's why I'd personally never want to be uninsured, even if I can afford to pay for myself.
I also believe, however, that a doctor requires a special person. They have to be compassionate enough if they want to help people in this manner. They are also bound by oath to do many things. Doctors, for example, do charge people for services, but they are not nitpicky about pay. Most treat anyone, regardless of financial health, and either expect pay later, or in extreme cases, the hospital can cover the charge itself. Maybe I'm too optimistic about human nature, but some compassionate people must work there.
You've agreed already that police services are a special case where the necessity of nationalization may be more important than the efficiency of one privately operated. I would suggest that, due to the moral and economic reasons above, plus due to the threat of contagion, health care is a second special case. (Personally, I also feel that education is a third such case, and that some social welfare is legitimate, but those are separate discussions)
[/QUOTE]

Calling a system "the best in the world" when the majority of the people cannot avail themselves of it seems silly. Think of it this way: if the king of Blugrovia pays 10 million bucks each a year to keep on his staff the top heart surgeon, the top brain surgeon, the top specialist in whatever field he wants, and pays them to do research, all so that he and his friends can get the best treatment, all the while his hundred million subjects don't get treatment, is his system "the best in the world"? Perhaps his specialists are the best, but his "system" is a giant failure. He should probably be embarrassed that he has frittered away such potential for greatness. He should have the best system in the world, but he does not.

Calling a system "the best in the world" when the majority of the people cannot avail themselves of it seems silly.
I was originally planning on replying to the entirety of your post, but I really only needed to read this sentence. I really, really hate to burst your bubble, but America's just about as capitalist as it gets on this planet right now, and our poverty rate is far from being worst in the world. According to the latest census, I beleive the 'lower class' consisted of roughly 35 million people, which is roughly ten percent of our population.

Since when is 10% a "majority" worth deciding policy over?

EDIT: now that I think of it, the same thing applies to healthcare. I don't see any epidemics [aside from possibly obesity--interesting, considering that I though attacks on capitalism were contingent on the belief that it doesn't spread resources around enough--and in this country [i]overeating is a larger problem for our impoverished than starvation is] sweeping the poor right now; and I have yet to hear of a second bout of the Black Plague caused by poor conditions and rats and so forth. Like I keep saying, your average American doesn't generally have $10,000 in medical debt.

Calling a system "the best in the world" when the majority of the people cannot avail themselves of it seems silly. Think of it this way: if the king of Blugrovia pays 10 million bucks each a year to keep on his staff the top heart surgeon, the top brain surgeon, the top specialist in whatever field he wants, and pays them to do research, all so that he and his friends can get the best treatment, all the while his hundred million subjects don't get treatment, is his system "the best in the world"? Perhaps his specialists are the best, but his "system" is a giant failure. He should probably be embarrassed that he has frittered away such potential for greatness. He should have the best system in the world, but he does not.
Um, yeah. The financing is bad, but then again, that is a corrupt cronie government you describe there.

It's funny that in the UK is a politician seriously suggested fully privatising healthcare they would be out.

It's funny that in the UK is a politician seriously suggested fully privatising healthcare they would be out.
Because no one knows any different. I can think of that happening in the US with other things.

Because no one knows any different. I can think of that happening in the US with other things.
There are plenty of people who remember before 1948.

There are plenty of people who remember before 1948.
I have no idea about the specifics of healthcare in the UK before then, but I can guess. Back in the days of knights in castles, some obscure little regulation was passed. It accelarated, trying to respond to problems that were, in fact, created by regulation in the first place. Finally, the state just decided to take on all oof the problems at once by nationalizing it, and creating lots of new problems.

I have no idea about the specifics of healthcare in the UK before then, but I can guess. Back in the days of knights in castles, some obscure little regulation was passed. It accelarated, trying to respond to problems that were, in fact, created by regulation in the first place. Finally, the state just decided to take on all oof the problems at once by nationalizing it, and creating lots of new problems.
Before 1948 it was in a similar way to the US now.

Before 1948 it was in a similar way to the US now.
That's exactly what I said. It had accelarating regulation, until we came to nationalization. I doubt the US will go that far in the foreseeable future, but the Medicare reforms give me no hope.

Let's save this one for last. It's the only intelligible question in here, and thus, it will be my only intelligible answer.
I can think of things for you. It is assumed that education will create a smart person, thus having a good job, and thus paying taxes. I myself don't agree with this circular logic, but I do agree that it is an example.
Exactly, whether or not you agree with the idea of taxes and their use to fund eductation, it does happen, so it is hardly realistic to suggest that all contributions to a person's current earning capacity will be subject to repayment through negotiation.

BTW, are you a Brit? There's no particular reason for my asking. I just love the word recompense. It has a ring to it, doesn't it?
No and yes, I am not a Brit, but recompense does have a groovy ring to it.

Yet you haven't answered why the VA is hardly used.
Why would I? How is it relevent? The point at issue was whether or not it is possible for government and privately provided health care services to coexist, not whether or not it is always the case that this will work out, or why in some particular case it did not. Your example no more proves that private and government funded health care services cannot coexist, than an example of one person who has never commited murder, proves that no person has ever committed murder.

Sweetheart, if margins are too low, innovation is at its best. That's because they have little choice other than to innovate. Why? Because if they don't, a competitor comes along with a better idea, and can earn higher margins.
Not necessarily. There may not be a better idea. Further health care is not an open entry market. Competitors are limited only to those who can actually enter the market (as providers). It is not impossible that the means of gaining entry may even exclude those who could provide innovations and new ideas. Now while you may think that the entry barriers could be removed, I find the suggestion unrealistic for most health service industries (at least those in industrialised Western nations), because at this time, and for the forseeable future, it just is not going to happen. That being the case, any argument that involves removal of entry to such barriers, is pie in the sky. Unless the removal of such barriers becomes likely, such an argument fails when applied to the real world.

True, though the latter catagory may be found mostly in communist dictatorships. Otherwise, everyone has a choice.
Untrue, not everyone who lives in a non-communist dictatorship (or in any dictatorship) has a range of viable alternatives to choose from, or even a viable alternative.

When LBJ signed away to his "Great Society" program, he intended Medicare to finance the elderly's health. While they often have special needs, the original program did not even come with means tests. But even if there were there, imagine how content some poor granny is to sit iin the hospital, knowing that the government is picking up the tab. Did she ever dream of saving enough for healthcare? Even if she didn't, did she feel obligated to work part-time? No. She was entitled. She had no reason to look after herself, or to be productive, because she lived on free money. She barely needs to pay a dime.
Irrelevent to the point you raised. What Medicare is supposed to achieve, and even what outcomes may eventuate from its existence, does not tell us why it exists. I suggest that any attempt to address why Medicare exists, that does not include the political realities, is at best incomplete. As an example, the elderly are known to be very politically active relative to other groups. Politicians (who are the ones actually deciding on the resource allocations that make Medicare possible) know this. I would suggest that this is very relevent to the existence of Medicare.

It is in many societies.
Is it? Well that does not make it any more relevent to a general discussion about possible health care distribution policies. The historical particulars of any one society or group of societies, do not dictate what is generally possible in theory, or in other societies, nor does it necessarily exclude making possible other alternatives within those societies in which other alternatives do not exist.

There is always a wide range with market-based solutions, of course.
No actually there is not always a wide range with market-based solutions. It is sometimes more economic to restrict the range of products or services offered, thus allowing those that are offered to be offered at a lower cost. This in turn places ones competition in the position of having to do likewise in order to lower the cost of their goods or services, or face decreased turnover and profits. Eliminating current products and services is in fact one way in which companies often do seek to reduce the costs of delivering goods and services.

But it's great to know that something better than what you've got exists, and to strive for it. Why strive for better when no one around you is better?
Why not? If all resource inequality were permenantly eliminated tomorrow, people would still compete for respect and recognition. Many parents I know are able to achieve the desired behaviours in their children simply through praise and criticism. Humans can be motivated simply through the desire to be well thought of by other humans. If resource inequality were non-existent, the human desire for the respect and good-will of other humans would still remain (along with the desire for the 'influence' over others that these things can bring). So to suggest that simply because a profit driven motivation to improve something does not exist, there is no motivation to improve something, appears misconceived to me.

If the cavemen struggled for equality, we'd still be chasing wooly mamouths down clifs and living til sixteen.
What makes you think they needed to struggle for what they appear to have more or less had? What inequality do you think a cooperative social group sharing resources might have? The good will and recognition and influence over others that do not seem in your models to be sufficient to motivate improvement? :confused:

Now, about that "right" thing. As I see it, I prescribe to the John Locke model that there are three rights: life, liberty, and property.
Right, but just because you like Locke's philosophy, does not mean that everyone agrees with it. Why should we recognise this right, what is the rational that would convince people to go along with a right (or group of rights) premised on Locke's theory?

Life is simply the right to live. Liberty should ensure that no one else has the right to stop you unless you are infringing on their rights. The most relevant here is property. Man is entitled to nothing, but he doesn't need to be. There's no theft of his property, or his talent, or produce. He shares these gifts as he pleases. Otherwise, it is theft. But if this confuses you, remember this: while man can share his gifts anyway he wants, there is no incentive for him to share it some ways, like for free. For the most part, he enters into a contract to share his gifts for compensation by like minded people.
Just think of modern society today. Is it right to kill someone? How about to take their home? Okay, bad example. The US decided it can do it as it pleases. Fortunatly, few find it right. If these rights are taken away, as they just were in the Supreme Court, then dictatorships can rise easily.
The right to not be murdered, can be established through other values than Lockes. The problem with Locke's model is that it appears to assert just rights with regards to property, as though the property currently owned had not in many cases come to be owned as a direct result of circumstances that according to Locke's principals would be manifestly unjust. Remember that in Locke's time it seemed perfectly natural that property acquired through inherited rights, themselves derived from denying liberty and property rights, were just. Were we to apply Locke's ideas to a circumstance in which everyone owned equal property, or only owned property that had been somehow earned, and where no property ownership could be defined as having resulted from circumstances contrary to the principles Locke suggests, then it might well be just. To suggest that it is unjust to interfere in property rights based on principles involving people owning the product of their own labour, when much property owned was accumulated through denying people ownership over the product of their labour (or even forcing them to labour) is just plain silly.

Zagat, I'm done with you. If you don't understand the ideas I've presented by now, no attempt on my part to explain them any further will ever succeed. All you seem to be interested in doing is saying "that's not relevant" or "you're not substantiating anything" over and over again , seemingly purely on virtue of the fact that I'm the one whos saying it.
It has nothing to do with who is saying it. If you cannot explain your ideas coherently, and counter objections to them, that is not really my fault. There is little point in getting angry at me about it. Nor will snide comments make your ideas appear any better presented.

Furthermore, your admission that you are "not attempting to make an argument" speaks volumes to the fact that any debate with you is pointless, since 'debate' appears to be another one of the many concepts to which you remain wholly ignorant.
I of course know what a debate is. The comment "I am not trying to make an argument' should make it absolutely clear that I am not participating in a debate with you. You keep insisting that I am failing to comprehend, it is ironic that you seem unable to understand the very simple assertions I have made regarding my lack of an argument. The simple fact is I do not have a strong conviction about health care distribution. I have a current preference, not strongly held. Thus I am far more interested in evaluating the reasons for other peoples beliefs about health care distribution, than I am in trying to assert any such ideas. I do not know why you so strongly object to being given the chance to convince someone of your opinion and change their mind, most people like to have the opportunity to bring someone else around to their way of thinking. To be honest I think your annoyance isnt that I am giving you the chance to convince me of something, as opposed to trying to ram ideas down your throat, but rather your annoyance stems from your own inability to present a convincing argument.

You seem to be plenty interested in telling me I'm "not substantiating anything" without bothering to point out why my observations are not valid "substance."
I have in fact pointed out exactly why your arguments are not substantive. I have not said they are without substance. There is a vast difference between an argument that has some substance and an argument that substantiates something.

If my analogies are flawed, it should be very easy to explain [i]why. You don't seem that interested in doing this in most cases, although I've noticed a few half-assed attempts.
Nonesense, I have explained exactly why.

If you want to count this as a victory, suit yourself. I have better things to do with my time than to keep re-explaining myself to someone who fails to comprehend any single word or thought that comes out of my mouth. You can't even [i]spell half of the words you're attacking me with.
I hardly see your failure to be able to express your arguments in a convincing manner to be anyones victory. I do not believe that I failed to comprehend any of your comments. As for spelling, how is that relevent. My dyslexia is not any business of yours and comments about spelling simply prove that rather than abandoning your attempts to express yourself because I lack capacity to understand and coherently reply to what you are saying, your reasons for abandoning the conversation are quite the opposite.

Getting frustrated at someone else because you cannot construct a solid argument is not only childish, it is counterproductive. Certainly it will not help you, and since I am not responsible for your ability or inability to construct a convincing argument, what is the point of reason for being angry at me. :confused:

Didn't bother reading the whole thread but...to quote the ever so bright Homer J. Simpson:

"America's health care system is second only to Japan ... Canada, Sweden, Great Britain ... well, all of Europe. But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay!"

;)

A bunch of stuff I probably won't bother to read
What part of "Zagat, I'm done with you?" don't you understand?


EDIT: and incidentally, while you aren't likely to find too many people on this forum who will agree with me, I'd bet my bollocks to a barn dance that you won't find a single other person here or anywhere else that won't be forced to admit that I have thoroguhly explained myself. If you want [moral] "substantiation" and "solid arguments," read my posts again when you've sobered up.

Short of that, what have we got to talk about?

Basic and Emergency healthcare should be free for all.

If you wish to have private healthcare that exceeds the basics then it is your choice to pay for it.

In systems where healthcare is completely private the poor have little or no access to it, even in America the poor suffer greatly due to being unable to afford healthcare. If someone is poor and their child needs a life saving operation they cannot afford then their child will die. But you get to save a few tax dollers so it is ok.

I am amazed that in the worlds wealthiest country so many people seem intent on grappling over a few dollers a week so that they can run a SUV rather than contribute to improving the nations health.

My father, a man who has worked hard all his life - first in a foundry, then paying for his own way through university and before finally working for the civil service, had being treated by the NHS for polysystic kidneys, which required a transplant from his brother.

Since we are a fairly middle class family, we certainly wouldn't qualify for any free medical care in America. However, if there was no NHS we would have all being bankrupt as a family by now thanks to the cost of his dialysis, operations, hospital care and anti organ-rejection drugs

This pretty much ends the debate for me - i'm very happy to live in a country which is civilised enough to provide free health care for all. You can debate about how badly the poor CEOs are treated who ONLY earn £200,000 a year now thanks to the "greedy government", but maybe you'll stop ranting about how poor people don't deserve to live if you develop an incredibly expensive disease.

Didn't bother reading the whole thread but...to quote the ever so bright Homer J. Simpson:

"America's health care system is second only to Japan ... Canada, Sweden, Great Britain ... well, all of Europe. But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay!"

;)
I have a few suggestions for Paraguay. Actually, my idea can easily work in any country that isn't corrupt and has few economic regulations, whether internally or imposed.

To Zagat:
I do agree with Melkor. Intellectually, you are tedious. You run around in circles and hide from my arguements by declaring them irrelevant. Well, I guess you are also irrelevant.