|
On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture.
See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism.
Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty?
Why do you even post.
|
On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ?
So here's a scenario:
A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare...
So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate?
|
Kiarip is dead on with the example 
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate?
It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all.
|
On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate?
Why do you take extreme examples just to prove your point ?
No system is perfect. It cant be.
You still havnt talked about the millions of people who wouldnt be able to access medication.
But hey, I guess it's better to talk about one ridiculous example.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:16 dafunk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:[quote] Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? Why do you take extreme examples just to prove your point ? No system is perfect. It cant be. You still havnt talked about the millions of people who couldn't heald themselves. But hey, I guess it's better to talk about one ridiculous example.
It's the free rider problem, and it's hardly an extreme example.
|
The idea that in a free market people won't be able to afford healthcare is completely ludicrous.
Technology only makes things cheaper not more expensive, the only reason anything ever gets more expensive is because it's something new, and the truth is there ARE some treatments, that if absolutely everyone required it, there just won't be enough to go around, and that's why they aren't affordable for everyone, but there's no reason that procedures that people have been doing for ages should be getting more expensive, they should only be getting cheaper. The reason they DO get more expensive, is because of the regulations imposed by the government. Tons of stuff gets labeled as "alternative medicine" and isn't even considered to be medicine, even if there was a time when it was, procedures that were once considered safe enough, are simply outlawed, because there's something new and more expensive, but if someone doesn't have the money for the thing that's more expensive he can no longer go and try to get something that his own parents at his age would consider to be incredibly safe as medical procedures go.
|
On January 05 2012 04:16 dafunk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:[quote] Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? Why do you take extreme examples just to prove your point ? No system is perfect. It cant be. You still havnt talked about the millions of people who wouldnt be able to access medication. But hey, I guess it's better to talk about one ridiculous example.
the reason they can't heal themselves is because the government makes it unaffordable.
If there was a 1 of a kind laser in the world, that could be used for eye-surgery to get perfect vision, that operation would cost insane amounts of money... do you think everyone should have the right to it? that's just not possible.
However, when you're talking about something that there IS practically enough for everyone, like penicilin, or aspirin, or simple surgeries, or casts, or body scans, or blood tests, or urine tests... It is no different than with any other service... The free market will deliver it to as many people as need it (as long as there is indeed enough of them,) and it will do so at the lowest price/quality ratio.
|
On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate?
I look at it this way: The man is good for the society. he pays taxes, he produces products/services. Therefore It would good for the government to "invest"/save him, so he can continue to contribute to the society. He will pay back the "investment" by paying taxes/creating jobs afterwards, which would otherwise be lost.
|
On January 05 2012 04:03 Haemonculus wrote:
But do poor people *really* deserve health care? C'mon.
I guess it all depends on how you want to value/view the good of your country. Bottom line GDP, or quality of life for your citizens?
If you think the poor deserve healthcare then give them healthcare(if you are a doctor), or give them money directly to buy healthcare from doctors, or if you don't trust yourself to judge who should get how much, then indirectly through some medical charity.
The issue is when 51% of the population determines what the other 49% do.
Just because you are ok with what a law makes you do right now, does not mean that it should be a law. It is generally (not in all cases of course, some laws are Very Very good) better that there is No law and you decide for yourself what do to.
Its a general problem with democracy which is why modern democracies have limits on the exercise of government power.
|
It's incredible how few people have absolutely no idea how many gross inefficiencies that government involvement in the medical care industry creates -- particularly when the government functions as payor.
|
On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:[quote] Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all.
No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection...
So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away.
Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in.
|
On January 05 2012 04:23 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:[quote] Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? I look at it this way: The man is good for the society. he pays taxes, he produces products/services. Therefore It would good for the government to "invest"/save him, so he can continue to contribute to the society. He will pay back the "investment" by paying taxes/creating jobs afterwards, which would otherwise be lost.
Well I think that this can only makes sense if the government already has a fund set aside for this sole purpose, but that means that they needed to have collected the money in the first place, meaning that socialized insurance is already there, because the guy practically paid for it from his taxes.
So yeah, if the government already has a socialized healthcare system, they better deliver on the promise, but the question is should it be there in the first place?
|
On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice.
Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period.
That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that.
Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism.
You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in.
Yet if it was an extremely contagious disease that only infected and killed poor people, you'd have the same people shouting that it was unconstitutional. Which is what the healthcare system you are proposing comes down to. The rich get what they need in excess and the very poor get to depend on rich people feeling magnanimous for surviving.
What an excellent world you're creating.
|
On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice.
Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period.
That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that.
Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism.
You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in.
Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire)
|
One again everyone of you thought about this on economic point of view. When theres a much more important problem.
From my POV, it would just be a crime to let people die when theres medicine for it and richer people can afford it.
In my country people are born equal in rights.
Liberty, Egality, Fraternity is what my country was build on.
Egality means you cant die from a curable disease because you cant afford it.
You can't wait 10 years for the product to be cheap enough. So what you imply is to let people die from that disease.
In a country that stand on pretty religious standards, that tells that life is holy and that you only have one, thats totally crazy just to be able to stand those two positions.
When in the other hand medicare is a totally substainable politic budget wise in the most developped country in the world.
I admit it may to be the best in the end for the economy, but it's the only human way to look at this.
|
Bachmann is out.
Thank god, I was starting to get really worried for this country when she was ahead of the polls last August...
I mean, this is the lady who said we should get rid of minimum wage to get people more jobs....
|
On January 05 2012 04:33 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:
[quote]Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing?
The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others.
And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade.
(I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.)
And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine?
[quote]
What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Yet if it was an extremely contagious disease that only infected and killed poor people, you'd have the same people shouting that it was unconstitutional. Which is what the healthcare system you are proposing comes down to. The rich get what they need in excess and the very poor get to depend on rich people feeling magnanimous for surviving. What an excellent world you're creating.
Who said anything about poor people? If someone is an immediate danger to those surrounding him, because he's infected with something absolutely terrible the person needs to be removed, and quarantined...
I don't see how only removing rich people would help? If it was some terrible disease the person is probably gonna die with or without healthcare, and it's not like being quarantined is fun, you don't quarantine someone for their well-being, you quarantine them for the well-being of those around them... Duh?
And of course, look if the cure for something was absolutely enormously expensive, the rich will get it first... do you have a problem with this? How do you think it should go by alphabetical order? Whoever is willing pay the most will probably get it first, however we're not talking about a situation like that, because in a situation like that most people are going to die either way, giving it away for free isn't going to save the humanity, because if there was so much of it it wouldn't be so expensive... this isn't a Hollywood movie...
One again everyone of you thought about this on economic point of view. When theres a much more important problem.
From my POV, it would just be a crime to let people die when theres medicine for it and richer people can afford it.
In my country people are born equal in rights.
Liberty, Egality, Fraternity is what my country was build on.
Egality means you cant die from a curable disease because you cant afford it.
You can't wait 10 years for the product to be cheap enough. So what you imply is to let people die from that disease.
In a country that stand on pretty religious standards, that tells that life is holy and that you only have one, thats totally crazy just to be able to stand those two positions.
When in the other hand medicare is a totally substainable politic budget wise in the most developped country in the world.
And most things are expensive because of government regulations. Medicine generally, once invented and tested can be mass-produced, and so its price should drop immediately, the only reason it doesn't is because of the regulations, licensing, and other stuff which jacks up the cost of development, and distributing.
If the government wasn't interfering the only medicine that wouldn't be affordable in the first place would be the one that there's literally not enough of, or if there's not enough doctors out there to operate or w.e, meaning that government intervention can't save you. The government can't give you something that's not there.
|
On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post.
Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:
[quote]Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing?
The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others.
And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade.
(I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.)
And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine?
[quote]
What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire)
It's works in the sense that it gets the job done, but it doesn't work from the outlook at the huge moral outrage that usually accompanies it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
