Who do you REALLY side with?

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326610 wrote:
The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people? They already do to a degree with the foodstamp program

Wow, thats quite a stretch. Being protected from being killed is quite different from being guaranteed "free" medical care, don't you think?

I never said free. Nothing is free. But they should be able to get the same basic care to keep them from dying that a more well to do person would. There will always be haves/have not's. I get that. What I don't get is why your ability to stay alive should be dependent on how much money you make.

In reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....

Life choices account for a large part, I can agree with that. And I really don't want the gov't telling anyone that they HAVE to do anything.

(Hypothetically speaking from this point on) IF there were a single payer system (or universal multipayer), I'm 100% ok with surcharges for people who knowing choose an unhealthy lifestyle. If you are fat, you are a higher risk, you need to pay MORE for coverage. If you smoke, you pay more. If you do drugs you pay more. Etc, etc, etc... And single payer isn't 100% accurate on how I'd want it done either. I'd rather see a German type system where you choose the coverage you want (basic coverage to keep you alive if you do get sick) but it is a universal multi-payer system. Multiple PRIVATE insurance companies provide the coverage, however the fed pays the bill for the base coverage.... if you want more/specific coverage, you pay out of pocket for that.

So I guess to answer thrash's question, I worded my own statement wrong/poorly. I think everyone has the right to life saving procedures and treatments beyond emergency room care (providing industry standard care for cancer, etc...) However, if you want experimental/high tech/advanced treatments beyond the normal scope, I'm ok with being able to pay that out of pocket or with specialized supplemental coverage.

[integra_gsr98]

I don't understand the dependence on insurance. I personally think that if health insurance only covered catastrophic or major surgeries and treatments that healthcare costs would go down. Especially if paired with some form of tort reform so doctors didn't have to worry about being sued into oblivion.

If you go in because you have the sniffles it costs so much because the leg work to get paid is ridiculous. If insurance didn't cover that and everyone paid market value a walk in appt would probably cost a max of 50 bucks.

[thrash]

Trafik Jamz;326614 wrote:
I think everyone has the right to life saving procedures and treatments beyond emergency room care (providing industry standard care for cancer, etc...)

Where does this right come from? Do I have it when I am alone on an island? What will motivate the majestic palms and the sandy beaches to heal my cancer?

Suppose I have a rare condtion called "Portmano Lethalisrexia". Basically, the cells in my forebrain are constantly getting sick and dying off. Without treatment, I'd live about 72 hours. However, with a simple treatment, I can lead a normal lifestyle and be a productive member of society.

The treatment for Portmano Lethalisrexia is simple -- I lay down and the heavenly touch of Natalie Portman's hand is applied to my forehead. I receive this treatment in 4 hour applications, every 48 hours. Lately it's been from 8am till noon, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Nobody can quite explain how it works, but the radiant aura of Mrs. Portman's hand reverses the cell necrosis and completely restores my brain function. I lead a normal life - I work hard at work and I can be a father for my children.

Mrs. Portman has been very understanding and accomodating, but as the number of patients with this condition seems to increase, it's getting difficult for her to find time to eat, act, and do more basic stuff like hang out with her friends. I feel bad for her, but I'm going to die if she stops doing it. It's just a few hours of her time, right? And it's not like I did anything to deserve this.. some people like me are just unlucky, you know?

I'm glad that in this country I have a right to receive lifesaving emergency medical care, and on-going treatments for chronic conditions that would be terminal if left untreated. I have to admit, I am a little concerned about what will happen to me if Mrs. Portman gets some kind of hand injury, or ends up getting sick, or heaven forbid, leaves the country or dies or something. When I was first diagnosed, she tried to skip the country but the goverment was able to stop her at the airport, luckily. For the first few weeks they were actually treating me at the county jail -- Mrs. Portman was being kept in custody, you see. We've had time to smooth things over though, and now she just wears one of those ankle bracelets so my doctors can keep tabs on her whereabouts. She has a special government agent that lets her take it off if she's going to be shooting a movie scene where she'll have exposed ankles. They've been pretty understanding and flexible with her work schedule.

I guess there are a lot of people in the country that don't care about people like me, and don't think I deserve to live. They talk about how much it is costing them to pay for all this government monitoring and handling of Mrs. Portman, they keep talking about how unfair it is to a rich beautiful actress like her.

Well, what about me? Do my kids not deserve a dad because I'm not rich and beautiful? Where's the fairness in that?

[Trafik Jamz]

Does the "right" NEED to come from anywhere other than human compassion and caring about the well being of others? For me, it does not. I personally think that everyone has a right to have the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Standardized Basic Health (treatments/insurance/whatever you want to call it), Standardized Basic Education (standard curriculum for K-12), and Standardized Basic Government Services (Law enforcement, fire departments, etc...) are things that I feel EVERY civilized society needs to succeed. Some of these things can happen at a local level, some will (unfortunately likely) need some federal involvement.

I realize my idea has it's flaws as well so there would need to provisions that allow for changes within it as well.

[thrash]

Trafik Jamz;326619 wrote:
I personally think that everyone has a right to have the opportunity to live their life to the fullest

But you don't actually beleive that. Or rather, that beleif is in conflict with other things you've written. You don't beleive doctors, for instance, have the right to have an opportunity to live their life to the fullest -- you beleive that their patients have a right to be treated. Do doctors have the right to take time off work? Do stop practicing when they want to retire?

Healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc -- when you call these things rights, they are POSITIVE rights. Positive rights require the cooperation and sacrifice of someone else. All positive rights are immoral because they depend on compulsion.

You cannot simultaneously beleive that doctors have the right to live their life to the fullest while at the same time beleiving government has the right to force doctors to provide services to people who have the "right" to basic healthcare. You have a contradiction you must resolve.

It's not a matter of patching up some things with your ideas -- Establishing positive rights fatally contradicts human freedom.

Tell me, what rights do sufferers of Portmano Lethalisrexia have?

[Trafik Jamz]

integra_gsr98;326617 wrote:
I don't understand the dependence on insurance. I personally think that if health insurance only covered catastrophic or major surgeries and treatments that healthcare costs would go down. Especially if paired with some form of tort reform so doctors didn't have to worry about being sued into oblivion.

If you go in because you have the sniffles it costs so much because the leg work to get paid is ridiculous. If insurance didn't cover that and everyone paid market value a walk in appt would probably cost a max of 50 bucks.

In principle I agree with you. People go to the Doctor for WAAAAAY too many stupid reasons. As a parent, I know that I am guilty of taking Jaiden in for minor things as well, but I've had a brush or two with more serious issues (that I thought were minor) that I took him in for that had I not he would likely not have his hearing today (What I thought was a sinus infection was in fact an ailment in his ear that was causing his eardrum to bleed ever so slightly and giving him foul smelling breath normally associated with a sinus infection.) Had I treated it like normal, he would have gradually lost his hearing I'm told. Since then, I tend to take things more seriously.

The truth of the matter is early detection leads to MUCH greater likelihood of survival and at lower costs. Preventive maintenance aka annual exams, etc.. (much like changing oil on a car) goes a long way toward prevention of catastrophic failure. I truly think insurance would cost more if EVERYONE went in only for major problems when they arise, rather than catching them much earlier on.

Tort reform (The changes CBO looked at in 2009 included a cap on non-economic damages at $250,000, a cap on punitive damages at $500,000 and shortening the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits) is estimated to save 2% annually if implemented. It would help, but it wouldn't be the magic bullet.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where all of you are coming from on a legal/constitutional standpoint. I really do. I also think that maybe the constitution needs to be changed if it is deemed unconstitutional. I just find it hard to believe that a country such as ours can't come up with a better solution than the other countries that have some form of universal healthcare coverage.... keeping in mind that most of those governments currently pay less per capita for health costs than our country does.

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;326620 wrote:
But you don't actually beleive that. Or rather, that beleif is in conflict with other things you've written. You don't beleive doctors, for instance, have the right to have an opportunity to live their life to the fullest -- you beleive that their patients have a right to be treated. Do doctors have the right to take time off work? Do stop practicing when they want to retire?

Yes, I do. I think Doctors have a right to live their life to the fullest. Where did I state otherwise? I believe that patients have a right to be treated. Yes. Does that mean we need more Doctors? Possibly. I didn't state that EVERY doctor has to treat every patient. Just that every patient should have access to the same BASIC standard of care.

Healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc -- when you call these things rights, they are POSITIVE rights. Positive rights require the cooperation and sacrifice of someone else. All positive rights are immoral because they depend on compulsion.

If that is immoral, I can live with knowing that I have immoral ideals. Life requires the cooperation and sacrifice of others.

You cannot simultaneously beleive that doctors have the right to live their life to the fullest while at the same time beleiving government has the right to force doctors to provide services to people who have the "right" to basic healthcare. You have a contradiction you must resolve.

I didn't say they won't be compensated. I didn't say that they would need to work longer hours and/or at lower pay. I actually think they would make more money with my system. Many Doctors are the owners (to some degree) of their clinics/hospitals. I am not forcing them to be open longer. I am not forcing them to choose that profession. I am not forcing anything really. If the Hospitals/Clinic can not keep up with patients they will add doctors/nurses/etc.. if not, the patients will go elsewhere. You said a while back that you thought that the AMA should be abolished as they actively restrict the number of new doctors. I agree with you.

It's not a matter of patching up some things with your ideas -- Establishing positive rights fatally contradicts human freedom.

So, you are in favor of abolishing the fire department, police departments, highway systems, etc? Seriously?

Tell me, what rights do sufferers of Portmano Lethalisrexia have?

In my example, whatever the industry standard of care is for that or a similar condition. If no such standard has been developed, then I would assume that you have me in a catch 22. No system is perfect, not even Libertarianism.

[Trafik Jamz]

I guess I consider it hard to consider oneself "civilized" if we are willing to let others die due to financial situation. I know I'm at odds with others on that (and often times myself). It's much easier to say "If you can't afford to get medical attention you should die" than it is to say "Let's find a way to provide services to help treat life threatening conditions for all".

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326619 wrote:
Does the "right" NEED to come from anywhere other than human compassion and caring about the well being of others? For me, it does not.

As long as the extent of your compassion ends at YOUR wallet, I agree with you 100%.

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326623 wrote:
I guess I consider it hard to consider oneself "civilized" if we are willing to let others die due to financial situation.

I find it hard to consider someone "civilized", when they want to pick peoples pockets to pay for someone elses medical expenses.

[thrash]

So, you are in favor of abolishing the fire department, police departments, highway systems, etc? Seriously?

I'm in favor of abolishing government.

Imagine, for a moment, the Cass County Government building(s) were empty. Imagine the state capitol was empty. Imagine there was no group or groups of people who had the ability to "arrest" you or break into your house or tax you or any of the other things government does to people that "normal" people can't get away with.

In this world, would people stilll want roads? Would they still want fires to get put out? Would they still want security, someone they could call if they needed help?

I think they would.

Would they want these things badly enough that they'd be willing to pay for them -- voluntarily?

I think most of them would.

People in North Dakota put out fires without government help right now. I have driven on roads in this very state that were designed, built, and maintained entirely by private actors.

The biggest triumph of government is convincing so many people that they need it; that life without "them" would be impossible.

I personally don't think we need a violent group of pscyhopaths with an army of bean counters and busy bodies, all of whom are above the law and can extort from any of us, break into our homes, close our businesses, and even KILL us... I don't think we need a group like that. But that's what government is. It is force. It is compulsion. It is, by definition, immoral. It may occasionally do things that seem beneficial - but occasionally beneficial ends do not justify it's violent means.

If I had my choice between 1 large police department I could never get rid of, and who could arrest me for any reason they liked, or 15 small ones that competed with each other and didn't want to make waves because that would be bad for business, I'd choose the latter. If companies that wanted to build roads had to negotiate with me on MY TERMS to get rights to build on my property, I'd actually beleive I owned property instead of renting it from the God-State who takes it from me at its pleasure. If I build my house out of non-flammable materials and keep a tidy lawn, you had better beleive that I'm going to pay less to my private fire suppression company than the other dipshits on my block.

And if I'm a rich son of a bitch, you had better beleive that I'm going to make sure the cops, fire department, ambulances, and emergency room staff have me at the top of their lists to serve and treat FIRST. I'll pay them more and I'll get better service. I'll pay them so much money and use so little of their services that they'll all buy gobs of nice equipment and have their employees training constantly. And the result will be that all of the "normal" people who have "normal" plans with these agencies still get the benefits of their excellent services and technologies.

Government is made up of us. You think government builds the roads now? Horseshit -- road construction experts build roads. You think government puts out fires? You should know damn well that a large chunk of firefighters are volunteers!

What government does, is it takes normal, fallible human beings -- and hopefully, it only takes the nicest ones with the most generous motives -- and it gives them the power to hurt others and get away with it.

Nobody should have a power like that.

In a voluntary society, one with no government, there will still be evil people who hurt others. But we won't be conditioned to think that's ok. We won't make special offices and titles for them to lord over us; we won't PAY THEM TO HURT US.

No matter what you do, there will be evil men, and thre will be innocent men that suffer. The aggregate needs of humanity will always be greater than the available resources. Man's appetite is limitless.

Men have a perfectly good way of resolving how infinite needs will met by limited resources. That way is commerce. Its medium is money.

You beleive that there are only two choices: "let" people die in the street, vs. allowing the immorality of government to exist. You are wrong for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, people currently do and ever shall die for reasons that can be argued to be lack of resources. No system you can design will allocate 1 billion dollars per second of the public treasury to keep someone alive. There will always be a maximum expenditure, beyond which those holding the purse strings will say, "enough". Ergo, even in your socialist dystopia, "people will die in the streets". Except everyone else will still be poorer and the quality of care for everyone will be worse.

Furthermore -- and let's get something straight -- nobody has a moral obligation to so much as bat an eyelash to prevent the death or suffering of another. If you beleive they have this obligation, the onus is on you to explain why and where it comes from. Is it a social contract? I didn't sign it. I've never even seen it. Ergo, it's bullshit.

We've already established that with what you propose, people will still die due to limtied resources. So you fail entirely at your stated goal.

What you are actually proposing is a total perversion of justice. There are infinite desires. There are limited resources. How then, should the resources be allocated? Should each resource owner allocate them for him or herself, according to her preferences? Or should there be a mystery group of special people who may steal from whom they like and gift other's wealth as they see fit? You advocate the latter -- and you have the audacity to call this civilization? If the difference between my vision and yours is that in your "civilization", an armed group of monsters robs from some to benefit others, who but someone who loved injustice and worshipped failure would choose what you're offering? Or do you rest on the assumption that they'll have no choice at all?

Finally, like all state apologists, you present a false choice.

The choices aren't "have a violent redistributionist system" or "people will die". People will die anyway.

And free people have always had the option to give of their limited resources for the benefit of others.

Why don't you trust society? You don't trust society's allocation of money -- you want to take from some and give to others -- and you don't trust that society will provide for those it values most. Why not? Who do you think can do a better job?

Will government care produce more resouces somehow? If not, you are tacitly admitting that you will actively see to it that some have less care than they previously had. Why would you want this?

You need a serious dose of Ayn Rand. Life requires sacrifice? Anytime someone says this, what they mean is "other's must sacrifice for my benefit". Why not just break in to my house and steal from me direclty? Don't tart up what you're doing with altrustic motives and fancy names. It's theft, and if you support it, you're a monster.

I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.
-- Robert Heinlein

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;326627 wrote:
I'm in favor of abolishing government.

Imagine, for a moment, the Cass County Government building(s) were empty. Imagine the state capitol was empty. Imagine there was no group or groups of people who had the ability to "arrest" you or break into your house or tax you or any of the other things government does to people that "normal" people can't get away with.

In this world, would people stilll want roads? Would they still want fires to get put out? Would they still want security, someone they could call if they needed help?

I think they would.

So far, I agree

Would they want these things badly enough that they'd be willing to pay for them -- voluntarily?

I think most of them would.

Agreed again.

People in North Dakota put out fires without government help right now. I have driven on roads in this very state that were designed, built, and maintained entirely by private actors.

Small fires, yes. Anything larger than a grass fire/small kitchen fire, etc.. typically involves the Rural Fire Departments. As for the roads, I have too... they are called prairie trails. Great for rally, shitty for daily use. Unless you know of some road that I am not aware of, the rest were built with Fed/State/County/City government money.

The biggest triumph of government is convincing so many people that they need it; that life without "them" would be impossible.

On principle I agree.

I personally don't think we need a violent group of pscyhopaths with an army of bean counters and busy bodies, all of whom are above the law and can extort from any of us, break into our homes, close our businesses, and even KILL us... I don't think we need a group like that. But that's what government is. It is force. It is compulsion. It is, by definition, immoral. It may occasionally do things that seem beneficial - but occasionally beneficial ends do not justify it's violent means.

I don't see the violence you are talking about, except maybe if you count taxation and death penalty as violence. Then you may have a point.

If I had my choice between 1 large police department I could never get rid of, and who could arrest me for any reason they liked, or 15 small ones that competed with each other and didn't want to make waves because that would be bad for business, I'd choose the latter. If companies that wanted to build roads had to negotiate with me on MY TERMS to get rights to build on my property, I'd actually beleive I owned property instead of renting it from the God-State who takes it from me at its pleasure. If I build my house out of non-flammable materials and keep a tidy lawn, you had better beleive that I'm going to pay less to my private fire suppression company than the other dipshits on my block.

Great in theory. In a perfect world, I'd agree.

And if I'm a rich son of a bitch, you had better beleive that I'm going to make sure the cops, fire department, ambulances, and emergency room staff have me at the top of their lists to serve and treat FIRST. I'll pay them more and I'll get better service. I'll pay them so much money and use so little of their services that they'll all buy gobs of nice equipment and have their employees training constantly. And the result will be that all of the "normal" people who have "normal" plans with these agencies still get the benefits of their excellent services and technologies.

And within this statement I find the flaws of your system. Your system states that he who has the money has the power. If I have a billion dollars, I can do whatever I want because there are no laws and I own whatever police force exists. They could in effect be my personal execution squad to squash whomever I don't agree with and no one could really do anything about it. I'd be able to walk into an emergency room and get my dislocated thumb set and force the staff to ignore the patient that had his arm cut off and allow him to die because I'd be willing to pay more. The problem with money in general is that it creates greed and can lead to very unethical situations like I outlined above. History has shown this.

Government is made up of us. You think government builds the roads now? Horseshit -- road construction experts build roads. You think government puts out fires? You should know damn well that a large chunk of firefighters are volunteers!

I know the Government doesn't "DO" those things, they simply allocate money to private contractors who do it for them. Who do you think pays for the roads? Who pays for the fire trucks that the volunteers use? Who dispatches them? Etc...

What government does, is it takes normal, fallible human beings -- and hopefully, it only takes the nicest ones with the most generous motives -- and it gives them the power to hurt others and get away with it.

To a degree I agree with you. In theory the constitution is supposed to protect us from that.

Nobody should have a power like that.

But a system based on net worth of an individual does that as well. You can abolish government, but I assure you that the very wealthy will act as their own government very shortly after this happens. They will have legions of people sworn to protect their way of life in exchange for special rights under the rule of their new "king" (for lack of a better term).

In a voluntary society, one with no government, there will still be evil people who hurt others. But we won't be conditioned to think that's ok. We won't make special offices and titles for them to lord over us; we won't PAY THEM TO HURT US.

I think you are naive on this point. I've beaten this to death in my reasoning above already.

No matter what you do, there will be evil men, and thre will be innocent men that suffer. The aggregate needs of humanity will always be greater than the available resources. Man's appetite is limitless.

Agreed. Hence the need for regulation.

Men have a perfectly good way of resolving how infinite needs will met by limited resources. That way is commerce. Its medium is money.

Again, you think that money is the answer? The rich decide what is best for everyone because their $100,000,000 gives them 1000x more power than the next guys $100,000. I see no way that this doesn't lead to more corruption than we currently have. People can be bought. Their way of thinking has a price on it. People are willing to look the other way if they feel their safety might be impacted by someone who has the means to make them disappear.

[Trafik Jamz]

You beleive that there are only two choices: "let" people die in the street, vs. allowing the immorality of government to exist. You are wrong for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, people currently do and ever shall die for reasons that can be argued to be lack of resources. No system you can design will allocate 1 billion dollars per second of the public treasury to keep someone alive. There will always be a maximum expenditure, beyond which those holding the purse strings will say, "enough". Ergo, even in your socialist dystopia, "people will die in the streets". Except everyone else will still be poorer and the quality of care for everyone will be worse./QUOTE]

Socialism implies that I want the government running the system and distributing the care. I don't. In theory I would rather see a base level of coverage (why do I feel like I'm repeating myself) being offered by private insurance companies with the premiums being paid by a single payer. I'm ok with allowing supplemental coverage if you feel you need more for any specific reason.

[QUOTE]Furthermore -- and let's get something straight -- nobody has a moral obligation to so much as bat an eyelash to prevent the death or suffering of another. If you beleive they have this obligation, the onus is on you to explain why and where it comes from. Is it a social contract? I didn't sign it. I've never even seen it. Ergo, it's bullshit.

I don't even know what to say to this.... but that's never stopped me from trying before. Here's my analogy on this: A mother doesn't want her baby anymore so she sets it on the highway so that it will get hit by a car. You see the situation happen and have ample time to rescue the child without endangering yourself. Instead you decide to watch and see what happens when the truck runs it over. What you said above is that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Neither you nor the mother should face any repercussions because of this, especially if the mother has enough money to pay off the security forces...or get "arrested" by the security force of her choice that lets her off with a stern warning.

We've already established that with what you propose, people will still die due to limtied resources. So you fail entirely at your stated goal.

Yes, people will still die. Where did I say they wouldn't? That is the one trait that is truly equal of all humans, we are all mortal. With my idea/goal/thought/whatever at least everyone has a basic chance at living. Those with more money will still probably have access to advanced care beyond the basic coverage, but a cancer patient (for example) may receive life saving treatment that they would otherwise have been denied.

What you are actually proposing is a total perversion of justice. There are infinite desires. There are limited resources. How then, should the resources be allocated?

Much like they are in the rest of the world. Some systems obviously work better than others, but there are a number of working models out there that would actually make insurance for the WHOLE less expensive via taxation than the current premiums for the few.

Should each resource owner allocate them for him or herself, according to her preferences? Or should there be a mystery group of special people who may steal from whom they like and gift other's wealth as they see fit? You advocate the latter -- and you have the audacity to call this civilization? If the difference between my vision and yours is that in your "civilization", an armed group of monsters robs from some to benefit others, who but someone who loved injustice and worshipped failure would choose what you're offering? Or do you rest on the assumption that they'll have no choice at all?

I think that I know the limitations and struggles that my version would bring. I know there would still be shortcomings. I really don't think that you realize just how crazy the world would be if the super wealthy basically controlled everything that they bought into. Like you said, you would give them so much money that they would be falling over to help you out whenever you needed. The exact opposite affect will happen on the other end of the scale.

Finally, like all state apologists, you present a false choice.

The choices aren't "have a violent redistributionist system" or "people will die". People will die anyway.

I agree with you on the last part. People are mortal. They will die. See above, I don't feel like repeating myself even though you are stating the same thing over and over and over.

And free people have always had the option to give of their limited resources for the benefit of others.

Agreed

Why don't you trust society?

Easy, in your perfect society that you outlined above, I could VERY easily see myself being the rich tyrant that gets what he wants and tells the people with less resources than him to get fucked.

You don't trust society's allocation of money -- you want to take from some and give to others -- and you don't trust that society will provide for those it values most. Why not? Who do you think can do a better job?

Sadly, I don't trust society or the government 100%. I'd like to believe that a representative government would be a merger of both. Still not perfect, of course.

Will government care produce more resouces somehow? If not, you are tacitly admitting that you will actively see to it that some have less care than they previously had. Why would you want this?

You seem to think that I want the government to provide the care or the insurance. I do not. I want the government to provide the funding for the insurance (in this thought.... this isn't my ONLY thought on how to deal with healthcare)

You need a serious dose of Ayn Rand.

No thanks. I've tried a few doses, didn't like the side affects.

Life requires sacrifice? Anytime someone says this, what they mean is "other's must sacrifice for my benefit".

I disagree. I'd probably sacrifice more than most on this board if we went to a tax based collection for health insurance vs a premium based option. FWIW, I also am in favor of a flat tax across all brackets, even the super poor. You earn a dollar, you pay $.XX cents tax. Period.

Why not just break in to my house and steal from me direclty? Don't tart up what you're doing with altrustic motives and fancy names. It's theft, and if you support it, you're a monster.

Why not just shoot the poor now and put them out of their misery before they get in your way at the hospital. Don't tart up what you're doing with fancy ideas. It's murder, and if you support it, you're a monster.

I wanted to see if it sounded just as dumb when I typed it. It does.

-- Robert Heinlein

[Trafik Jamz]

Seems to me like we could do better by just using ANY of the models that the other countries are using....except maybe Norway who spends more per person on their public system than we do. EVERY other country in the OECD spends less than us and the majority live longer (yes, I know fat American's makes a difference too.... but Canadians are just as fat in my personal experience)

[thrash]

Why not just shoot the poor now and put them out of their misery before they get in your way at the hospital. Don't tart up what you're doing with fancy ideas. It's murder, and if you support it, you're a monster.

I wanted to see if it sounded just as dumb when I typed it. It does.

The difference is simple. It would be wrong for me to shoot poor people haven't done anything to harm me. It wouldn't be wrong for a doctor to prefer to give me better service if I am giving them more money -- although it would be perfectly fine if the doctor gave me worse service or no service at all -- after all, in a voluntary society, that's their right.

Taxation is theft. Living on the same planet as someone else who happens to get sick doesn't make me responsible for their sickness. It's not my fault if other people get sick. It's not my responsibility to help them. I can do so if I choose to, but nothing can obligate me to do so.

I keep repeating myself because you continue to not get it. You are advocating for an objective moral evil. I don't care how great you think it will make things -- it's just plain wrong. If you're willing to commit harm to innocent people because you think it's going to make society better, what's the difference between putting the sickest 10% of Americans in the gas chamber every year? Won't that also reduce health costs dramatically?

Of course, that's ridiculous. I'd never suggest such a thing because it is morally reprehensible to harm people in that way.

The other thing you need to ask yourself is this: how do people get rich? I asked before and you didn't answer. In a voluntary society -- how will people get rich?

[thrash]

Trafik Jamz;326631 wrote:

Seems to me like we could do better by just using ANY of the models that the other countries are using....except maybe Norway who spends more per person on their public system than we do. EVERY other country in the OECD spends less than us and the majority live longer (yes, I know fat American's makes a difference too.... but Canadians are just as fat in my personal experience)

The bad thing about data is that it's easy to misinterpret. First off, Americans have the highest disposable income of any nation. Looking at how much we spend on healthcare and then determining "OMG SKY FALLING" is kind of strange. Do you want to know what I spend on groceries? Hint: it's more than what most people in most of the world make in 1 month.. or even 1 year. Doesn't bother me -- I try to buy the highest quality foods possible for my kids, and I can afford it. If you looked at how much I spent on food you might conclude that food cost to much. Or that I need "improved Access to food" or some similar socialist code-words. You'd be wrong.

Life Expectancy is impacted by all kinds of things. Did you know that the #1 cause of death for black men in the USA under age 35 is murder? Are black men factored into our national average life expectancy? Do you think they are dying because the US has a "bad" healthcare system? Do you think Norway has the same problem?

Did you know that in the much vaunted "infant mortality" study, that the US has the lowest rate of infant mortality if your baby is premature? And that our aggregate mortality is impacted by our extremely high rate of prematurity? And that European nations calculate infant morality entirely differently?

There are European countries where if a baby is born prior to full term and dies, they don't count that in our infant mortality data. Is it reasonable to draw comparisons from those countries to the US?

Look, you can get your health care anyway you like it to. Changing how I get mine via force of government is immoral. Making me pay for your healthcare is immoral.

Even though I am happy to debate the "technical" problems of state-run care with you, the conversation misses the point entirely: what you want to do is morally unacceptable, so I don't care how good or bad it is.

Stop avoiding the question of morality.

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;326632 wrote:
The difference is simple. It would be wrong for me to shoot poor people haven't done anything to harm me. It wouldn't be wrong for a doctor to prefer to give me better service if I am giving them more money -- although it would be perfectly fine if the doctor gave me worse service or no service at all -- after all, in a voluntary society, that's their right.

I made the point because it was silly, just like your point.

Taxation is theft. Living on the same planet as someone else who happens to get sick doesn't make me responsible for their sickness. It's not my fault if other people get sick. It's not my responsibility to help them. I can do so if I choose to, but nothing can obligate me to do so.

So, if there is some insanely killer epidemic that if treated will save millions of lives but if left untreated will end millions of lives, you would rather watch a million people die than see a government step in and pay for those services? And YOU want to lecture ME on morality?

I keep repeating myself because you continue to not get it. You are advocating for an objective moral evil. I don't care how great you think it will make things -- it's just plain wrong. If you're willing to commit harm to innocent people because you think it's going to make society better, what's the difference between putting the sickest 10% of Americans in the gas chamber every year? Won't that also reduce health costs dramatically?

Saving lives>Saving money in my moral definition. Though, I strongly feel my idea would save both in the long run (compared to what we are doing NOW.)

Of course, that's ridiculous. I'd never suggest such a thing because it is morally reprehensible to harm people in that way.

So, it's more moral to let them suffer and die than it is to put them out of their misery? It's somehow moral to know that you might have been able to do something to save/treat/cure thousands of people less fortunate than yourself, but your money is more important than a human life? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?

The other thing you need to ask yourself is this: how do people get rich? I asked before and you didn't answer. In a voluntary society -- how will people get rich?

In a number of ways, and it probably wouldn't take all that long to happen either. They will either have the force necessary to take the resources that they need to acquire wealth or they will persuade others that by following them they will be able to provide goods or services for those people, they will show them how working for them has it's perks beyond doing something for themselves. Eventually there will be a huge selection of haves and have not's, which will ultimately lead to a war (either for resources or for rights/freedoms). Some of the "rich" will side with the rest of the rich and create a federation of sorts, some will show compassion and side with the poor and create their own federation. There will then be leaders (s)elected on both sides and different groups will be assigned different tasks within these federations. Some will provide military leadership/insight, some will control the budget and finances, some will work on diplomacy, some will work on making sure that the agricultural system is sustainable, some will work on imports and exports, some will work on a way to ensure that there are enough revenue sources to sustain this new federation, some will work to establish laws and rules and a means to enforce them, some will work to develop a system that doesn't rely entirely on the bartering of goods and will create money...... Wait, that has all already happened. We call it creating a government.

Anarchy, EVERY TIME it has been tried has failed. If it hadn't, we would not see any governments in the world today.

Your Utopian libertarian anarchist view is as flawed as communism. Both SOUND like good ideas in theory (and I'm not advocating for either).
Communism because everyone is "equal" under the system. There is no privileged class. Everyone earns the same wages.
Your view because everyone is "free" to do what they want, no rules exist and everyone has an equal chance at success.
Both fail because humans will find a way to advance themselves and oppress others. In both systems people find ways to become rich, and the rich become powerful and the powerful eventually abuse their powers in an effort to keep those whose financial status is below their's in check. Both figure out a way to have a glimmer of hope, but neither (after generations of power/wealth) make it possible for the rest to achieve what they have. The flaw in both plans is that people are corruptible, people like having more than the next guy and people find ways to prevent others from succeeding (I do this every single day in my job.... I bid construction jobs and my goal is to win every project by whatever means necessary)

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;326633 wrote:
The bad thing about data is that it's easy to misinterpret. First off, Americans have the highest disposable income of any nation. Looking at how much we spend on healthcare and then determining "OMG SKY FALLING" is kind of strange. Do you want to know what I spend on groceries? Hint: it's more than what most people in most of the world make in 1 month.. or even 1 year. Doesn't bother me -- I try to buy the highest quality foods possible for my kids, and I can afford it. If you looked at how much I spent on food you might conclude that food cost to much. Or that I need "improved Access to food" or some similar socialist code-words. You'd be wrong.

Life Expectancy is impacted by all kinds of things. Did you know that the #1 cause of death for black men in the USA under age 35 is murder? Are black men factored into our national average life expectancy? Do you think they are dying because the US has a "bad" healthcare system? Do you think Norway has the same problem?

Doesn't even make the top 10 for all males though. Meaning less than 1.8% as a whole.

http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/index.htm

Looks like Norway is about on par with us for what causes death.

Did you know that in the much vaunted "infant mortality" study, that the US has the lowest rate of infant mortality if your baby is premature? And that our aggregate mortality is impacted by our extremely high rate of prematurity? And that European nations calculate infant morality entirely differently?

I did know that. I never said our system sucks at everything. We do a lot of things well, I don't hate America, I just think we can improve on what we currently do.

There are European countries where if a baby is born prior to full term and dies, they don't count that in our infant mortality data. Is it reasonable to draw comparisons from those countries to the US?

No, if you are comparing apples to oranges (which THEY are, not you thrash) and/or the means for calculation are different, it is impossible to call it a fair comparison. That's why I dealt with DEATHS as a whole, not each individual cause.

Look, you can get your health care anyway you like it to. Changing how I get mine via force of government is immoral. Making me pay for your healthcare is immoral.

Assuming you are paying for insurance now, you are subsidizing my health care as well. Even if we have different insurance companies. Every choice (good or bad) that you make that affects your body has an impact on what I pay for health insurance as well. Every healthcare plan that you are a part of creates a broader risk pool for your company AND for all the other companies as they are all re-insured (insurance companies insuring other insurance companies) to help offset a catastrophic event.

Even though I am happy to debate the "technical" problems of state-run care with you, the conversation misses the point entirely: what you want to do is morally unacceptable, so I don't care how good or bad it is.

Stop avoiding the question of morality.

Alright... is it moral to ask/demand that others pay into a system that redistributes wealth? No. Is it moral to stand back and watch others suffer because you weren't willing to help the people of your country (every man for himself)? No. Neither system is moral. The first one is less immoral than the second in my opinion. There is nothing preventing anyone from accumulating more wealth. Once you reach a certain point your tax rate reaches a maximum percentage (and typically your deductions/write offs/loopholes get more and more as well making your effective tax rate lower). I've never met anyone that said "You know, last year I made $379,000 and was in the 33% tax bracket so I paid $125,000 in taxes ($254,000 after taxes), this year I have the opportunity to make $405,000 because I got a 7% pay raise as CEO of my company.... I think I'm going to decline that pay raise because I'll have to pay 2% more taxes ($141,000) even though my after tax income is $10,000 more than it was the year before". Yes, the guys right at the cutoff do get a bad deal though. I agree 100%. Which is why I again support a flat tax at a fixed point with virtually no deductions (and yes, I know about the headache that this causes as well since if there were no deductions businesses that lost money for the year would still have to pay income taxes on what they did make....I worded that poorly, I know...but I think you are smart enough to figure out what I mean)

[thrash]

You need to get over this "let them die" bullshit.

Why is socialized medicine only good for this country? Suppose we get whatever healthcare system you want in place here. Why doesn't it extend coverage to people in Africa? How many Africans are you willing to let die? You're really not willing to lift a finger to help them? What kind of jerk are you?

I was clear about my obligations -- or lack therof -- in the first post.

Yes, It is more moral for me to sit by and do NOTHING to help someone than it is to allow you to HURT and STEAL from me when I've done nothing wrong!

What i want is for people to help each other. But i want to be clear about the ground rules -- I cannot be legally COMPELLED to help someone. I have no obligation to do so.

If i have an obligation to help people, as you seem to claim, what releives me of that obligation? Am I allowed to sleep? Am I allowed to eat until I am full? Am I always required to lift heavy objects for weaker people? Do I need to keep fixing people's computers for free? How much time am I allowed to spend playing with my kids when there are needy people nearby?

If you concede the principle that I must sacrifice for the good of others, then all is lost.

This claim that i have an obligation to help based on the neediness of others is Crazy. It's crazy because it's moral condemnation bullshit -- its not even an acheivable guideline. I could spend every waking second of my life and every dollar of my income giving my all for everyone. And there'd still be suffering. You could take 100% of my income and just $2 more could feed some kid in africa for 10 years. If you took everything someone, would still find that I should work 1 more hour per day to feed 30 more kids.

It IS moral to "let" someone suffer because suffering is infinite! No matter what I do, I can never stop everyone's suffering! If the suffering of others places a moral burden on me, how can any human being anywhere be moral? How can there even be virtue? Every second of my existance I "let" someone die -- and so do you!

Do you want a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice? Because that's what your sacrificial standard of morality is. Hopefully you never get what you're asking for good and hard - like so many of the people who got socialized medicine BEFORE the countries in your dinky chart.

I have not wronged someone by "letting" them die. But you HAVE wronged me by stealing from me.

How do you think I got that money? By spending my fucking hours working. You know how much time I get to spend with my kids? Not enough. Know how much time I get to spend with my wife? Not enough. I spend time working because I need to to serve myself and to serve society. When you dock my paycheck for your emotionally-driven pity parties, you're keeping me away from my kids. You're keeping me from donating as much to church. You are disrespecting my family, and you are taking a giant shit on the entire concept of work, value, and life.

You think what you're advocating is moral? What have I ever done to you? What gives you the audacity to think what you're proposing is acceptable?

[Rexwagon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP4Ed3xJ0t8