|
I wish I'd written this, but I didn't. This was posted as a comment on digg.com, and it's quite excellent (strange as that may be in and of itself). I just wish Obama had the balls to put it this way:
"I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its
valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."
|
No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event.
|
I think the idea you should draw from this is that some things are so important, it would be foolish for the government not to be in charge of it (or at least regulates it with a heavy hand). It goes hand in hand with the idea the government used to have that some things were too important to outsource - like troops in our military. Through the government, there is a much higher degree of accountability than can be provided in the "open" market. The current healthcare situation is a demonstration of just how badly insurance companies have performed as coverage providers, though they have succeeded in raking in obscene amounts of money.
I thin if you read that in the most literal way possible, then YOU are ignorant.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
Right, and therein lies the debate. None of which is applicable to anything contained in the original post.
|
i dont think it was aimed at the efficacy of government regulation as much as the fact that so many idiots complain that public health care would start us down the slippery slope to socialism when really the government already does all this and more.
|
Sigh.
This just brings us back to the misguided debate about whether a private or public health care system would be "better" (and what exactly "better" means in this context, because certainly both systems have advantages and have risks -- denying the risk of any real world system, no matter what that system is, is foolishness, so let's not get into that).
The reality is that a health care system, public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. Just like a government, no matter what kind it is, can never be better than the leadership that runs it (in our ignorance, we like to say "political system X is better than Y," but what does that even mean? We say democracy is better than dictatorship, but a good dictator will do a better job than a bad congress -- don't get me wrong, speaking in general I'd rather live in a democracy, but the word "better" here is completely misguided; many nations around the world have failed at democracy and weren't always better off).
I am against the so-called "health care reform." The actual plans for the policy do not seem like a step in the right direction and this policy will be shoved down our throats when I'd rather keep my current insurance coverage.
And for the record, I'm glad Obama doesn't talk this way, because I would have absolutely no respect for the man whatsoever as a human being. That post sounds like something written by a used car salesman. It does not actually discuss the policy of the "reform."
|
On September 19 2009 02:46 Chill wrote:
This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event. regardless of whether this is a legitimate argument or not, you have to admit that it was very clever despite its tongue-in-cheek tone. and as for my opinion on the argument itself, i thought it was a good satire of the conservative/republican train of thought.
|
Whether or not, health care is necessary for the government to provide is very easy to explain why it is.
If everybody was happy, and by everybody I mean, roughly 80% with the current system, then why would we be having this debate.
Is not the very act of having a debate over the health care system. I showed to bet the health care system is flawed. And what historically has been done to assist them that the government deems that the free market is unable to provide.
Simple they provide it themselves. Although arguably, they tend to forget about it after a while, such as our roads and bridges (for those who do not know according to, I forget a group of civil engineers that have a proper name, I just cannot remember it. They rate America's roads and bridges with an average of about C. that the structure of America is rated at C, America is a C. student and infrastructure, why is it because our government has a tendency to "if it is not broken. It still works “mentality). But keep in mind; they are trying to get our best interests, because if we are happy they get reelected. And they are doing her job.
Basically Reform needs to happen the problem is. Can you keep the companies on this without having a public option? Could we regulate the so-called too big to fail banks properly? We honestly cannot regulate quality the system is too slow to respond in this ill-fated sale, if we just regulate.
|
On September 19 2009 03:33 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 02:46 Chill wrote:
This says nothing and is the most ignorant form of argument. You can paint this any way you want. Oh today I was thinking about the nuclear arms the US government used against a foreign country while I drove past the ruins of a city the government couldn't shelter from a predictable weather event. regardless of whether this is a legitimate argument or not, you have to admit that it was very clever despite its tongue-in-cheek tone. and as for my opinion on the argument itself, i thought it was a good satire of the conservative/republican train of thought.
Maybe for the Bill O'Reilly's of the world, but for conservatives and Republicans in general? I don't think so...
For instance, there are a lot of conservatives who feel that services such as the USPS should be privatized. NASA is a bit different because it can and does deal with matters of national security. Many conservatives feel that the government should be as small as possible, primarily focusing on defense and maintaining the law, and little else.
When I read the OP, it struck me that I couldn't figure out what issue the person is supposedly "conservative" on.
|
USPS, public roads, NASA, public water supply...where are the examples of things the government runs well? USPS has never turned a profit while UPS consistently does despite being at an extreme disadvantage due to extra regulations. Yes public roads exist and we drive on them because we have to, but does anyone actual think the government does a good job maintaining or designing them? NASA has gone nowhere in the past 30 years, and has recently started outsourcing for rockets to private companies because it is CHEAPER and BETTER. Public water is terrible. Everything else in the article is just government "regulation" which of course it already does with insurance companies. So by that logic health insurance is already run by the government.
|
Since when is profit the supreme measure of success? Some things have an inherent ethical conflict with the motive of profit, in my opinion.
|
On September 19 2009 02:44 theonemephisto wrote:
No one denies that some things the government does/have done are good and necessary and have been beneficial. Though, even with that list, I believe that the government shouldn't really be involved with a lot of the things. Namely, utilities shouldn't be a public monopoly, drugs should be less regulated, EPA should be less powerful, basically many regulations shouldn't be as stringent, the USPS shouldn't even exist, schools shouldn't be a public monopoly, etc.
Sometimes there's a compelling government interest in providing a service; the actual difficult part is discerning which services have that government interest and which don't. For instance, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom gives his arguments (that I'd say a good sect of conservatives agree with) for which services the government should be involved in and which ones they shouldn't.
LOL are you serious? Drug companies would sell you poison, then the antidote if they could get away with it.
Drug company CEOs complain that the FDA is too strict, because they want evidence that their drugs ACTUALLY WORK. Boo fucking hoo.
The reason they still want SOME evidence for late-term cancer drugs is because companies could get away with selling anything to desperate dying people and get rich exploiting them (see all the miracle cure peddlers).
|
United States43752 Posts
The flaw of a private system is that there will be effective treatments which are good value for money and would save society as a whole money which are not used because the individual cannot afford them.
The flaw of a public system is that there will be less effective treatments which the rationing body has designated bad value for public money which the individual could otherwise afford but cannot choose to have.
A mixed system (public provision with a non subsidised private option) alleviates most of this problem by allowing the rich to have private care if they forfeit the money they contributed through tax to the public option but there will be a few on the cusp who cannot afford private care because of the higher taxes funding a public service.
That said, I am in favour of public healthcare. It sucks to hear a doctor say "There's an experimental treatment which has shown results in a small minority of cases but it's been judged as insufficiently effective to use in an attempt to save Grandpa's life". It sucks way more to hear "There's a treatment which will work but it's expensive and you can't afford it. We'll provide emergency care each time he crashes but not the preventative care to deal with his condition".
Rationing is the lesser of two evils.
That said, we had a huge discussion on this a month ago with a lot of long posts filled with good arguments. Making a new one purely for the OPs straw man is kinda pointless.
|
On September 19 2009 04:08 Louder wrote:
Since when is profit the supreme measure of success? Some things have an inherent ethical conflict with the motive of profit, in my opinion.
LOL
0/10
|
dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO"
|
On September 19 2009 04:29 uiCk wrote:
dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO"
yes America is probably the most expensive health care system there is but guess what, if you have the money to get treatment you can get it. It is interesting you bring it up, because it was that Canada or Canadians. America hears a lot of stories about Canadian health care system where people had to wait a long time to get a liver or kidney transplant or something like that. Basically people dying because they had to wait for something that they did not really have the way for America. Of course now I do believe the Canadian system is reformed to if you can pay for it yourself. You can get it done in a timely manner , which is not single-payer, but still it is a public option
|
|
|
On September 19 2009 04:33 Saddened Izzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2009 04:29 uiCk wrote:
dont worry america, your health system got no flaws, its only the most expensive health care in the world, and who gives a fk about the poor that cant aford them.
someone should make a pic of "Money or GTFO" yes America is probably the most expensive health care system there is but guess what, if you have the money to get treatment you can get it. It is interesting you bring it up, because it was that Canada or Canadians. America hears a lot of stories about Canadian health care system where people had to wait a long time to get a liver or kidney transplant or something like that. Basically people dying because they had to wait for something that they did not really have the way for America. Of course now I do believe the Canadian system is reformed to if you can pay for it yourself. You can get it done in a timely manner , which is not single-payer, but still it is a public option
yea you HEAR alot. unfortunatly, canadian system is in need of reform too, because of its multiplying bureaucratic effects inside of the system resulting in money being wasted, not being able to cope with the higher demand of a massive aging population. but at least if you got signs of cancer, even if it might take some time, you will get all possible treatments, no mater if u make 2c a day or a mill, wich is just a little more humane then being able to only aford some treatments or even none.
|
Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.
Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9642/homelessvet.jpg)
