On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote: I thought I would stop by and highlight more of Aegraen's dishonesty which seems to be occuring in this thread as well. By the way, Aegraen, I'm still waiting for a response in the Condoleezza thread.
As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.
I largely agree with Aegraen on this issue. No need to be a cheerleader, ok.
On May 18 2009 05:21 HeadBangaa wrote: Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.
Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.
That's shitty administrative costs that could be reworked by a government program. Why would governments use the same shitty health system everyone is complaining about?
The current system is the creation of government intervention! You don't know what you're talking about...
So as sort of a follow up question, out the Americans on teamliquid that actually do realise how bad your health care system is is anyone taking action? Activism, protesting or organizing. I found three organisations quite quickly:
On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote: I thought I would stop by and highlight more of Aegraen's dishonesty which seems to be occuring in this thread as well. By the way, Aegraen, I'm still waiting for a response in the Condoleezza thread.
As always an excellent post Syntax Lost, but you won't ever get him to reply to your posts. The sane part of Teamliquid thanks you for your efforts, but if you're hoping for a response, your efforts have all been in vain I'm afraid.
I largely agree with Aegraen on this issue. No need to be a cheerleader, ok.
Ehhh.. Unlike 99 % of all posts posted in debate topic his included proper sourcing which I commemorated him for. That Aegrean hasn't looks to be true so far, so I fail to see what exactly it is I did wrong. I agree almost 100 % with what Syntax wrote and since he wrote it so much better than I could've ever done I decided not to make a huge one of my own.
On May 18 2009 05:21 HeadBangaa wrote: Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.
Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.
That's shitty administrative costs that could be reworked by a government program. Why would governments use the same shitty health system everyone is complaining about?
The current system is the creation of government intervention! You don't know what you're talking about...
On May 18 2009 05:21 HeadBangaa wrote: Dumping tax dollars into healthcare doesn't create more doctors, it's that simple.
Small town doctors have literally been forced out of business by the imposition of government regulation and the weight of liability, paperwork, and medicare/medicaid.
That's shitty administrative costs that could be reworked by a government program. Why would governments use the same shitty health system everyone is complaining about?
The current system is the creation of government intervention! You don't know what you're talking about...
Elaborate please if you're so clever?
It used to be that medical care was a private issue between doctor and patient. With the advent of HMOs, Medicare/Medicaid, a conflict of interest is introduced; medical diagnoses and their treatment costs are scrutinized by those who have no authority on the subject: HMO accountants and government bureaucrats. This has lead to a conflict of interest: with a 3rd party footing the bills and liability at an all time high, doctors have lost any incentive to keep costs low.
The $200 doctor visit is a side-effect of government intervention.
In the absence of a complete reversion to our former (and vastly superior) private care, American citizens are forced to rely on medical insurance for all doctors visits, major and minor. The way it should be is that insurance is invoked only for the costs of major procedures.
As Ludwig von Mises put it: government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control. And that's exactly where we are now, patching previous patchwork introduced by the gov't back in the 60's.
The scary part of reading these political threads on TL, is that everybody seems to adhere to the status quo, having been so immersed in the trappings of the Welfare State, and losing their political creativity, trusting in the institutions of government over the individual and charity, contrary to what history has taught us time and again.
I don't think anyone here is "adhering to the status quo" people just seem to think that america could and should a healthcare system that's as good and effective as other comparable industrial nations.
On May 18 2009 07:17 VegeTerran wrote: I don't think anyone here is "adhering to the status quo" people just seem to think that america could and should a healthcare system that's as good and effective as other comparable industrial nations.
And you see no other way to do this than with more government welfare programs? You take the very contention for granted and prove my point for me.
The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.
On May 18 2009 07:17 VegeTerran wrote: I don't think anyone here is "adhering to the status quo" people just seem to think that america could and should a healthcare system that's as good and effective as other comparable industrial nations.
And you see no other way to do this than with more government welfare programs? You take the very contention for granted and prove my point for me.
He wasn't ruling out that a totally private system might work. Merely pointing out that the nationalised example of other industrial nations does work.
On May 18 2009 07:17 VegeTerran wrote: I don't think anyone here is "adhering to the status quo" people just seem to think that america could and should a healthcare system that's as good and effective as other comparable industrial nations.
And you see no other way to do this than with more government welfare programs? You take the very contention for granted and prove my point for me.
He wasn't ruling out that a totally private system might work. Merely pointing out that the nationalised example of other industrial nations does work.
As it was a response to my blurb about status quo, his statement couples "effective healthcare" with the ideas of those I enumerated, that is, the big gov't proponents.
Again, the expensive system CHomsky criticizes is an artifact of government intervention. Again:
government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control. And that's exactly where we are now, patching previous patchwork introduced by the gov't back in the 60's.
These proposals do not lower the cost of healthcare. They hide the cost by burdening the tax payer.
Instead of deferring to Chomsky the Linguist, let us consider Ron Paul, the Medical Doctor.
In these United States of America, one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.
But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.
Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want regain both our health and our freedom.
Forced nationalization is the worst possible answer. To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.
Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?
There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.
As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto“:
In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.
Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.
As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.
The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.
government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control. And that's exactly where we are now, patching previous patchwork introduced by the gov't back in the 60's.
These proposals do not lower the cost of healthcare. They hide the cost by burdening the tax payer.
Instead of deferring to Chomsky the Linguist, let us consider Ron Paul, the Medical Doctor.
In these United States of America, one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, many people cannot afford even basic health insurance. They suffer severely under the present system and have to live under the constant fear of not knowing what they will do if they or their loved ones ever fall seriously ill.
But in many cases, insured individuals aren’t much better off either. In comparison to the exorbitant insurance premiums they pay, the medical care they receive is often very poor.
Additionally, due to the government-enforced monopolies of HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations) and pharmaceutical companies, many patients will never even hear about some of the most effective and non-invasive treatment methods. These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
The current system is most definitely broken, and it must eventually be abolished if we want regain both our health and our freedom.
Forced nationalization is the worst possible answer. To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.
Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?
There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
Through these measures and the elimination of government-sponsored health care monopolies a much larger number of people will be able to finally access affordable health care, either by paying for medical insurance or by covering their medical expenses, which are now much lower, out of their own pocket.
As for the poor and the severely ill who can neither obtain insurance nor pay for the medical care they need, Ron Paul offers the following solution in his book “The Revolution: A Manifesto“:
In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
Unfortunately, the current medical monopoly corrupts many doctors by rewarding practices that are not in the patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not curing people, but getting them permanently addicted to expensive drugs that have many side effects, thereby requiring additional drugs to suppress those side effects. Many doctors are afraid to speak up and question the system for fear of being ostracized by their peers or even losing their license.
Under a liberated health care system prices would come down and additional options would become available, thereby making health care much more affordable. Moral corruption would give way to true compassion, and many doctors would remember their implicit obligation to provide free medical care to those in need, just like they did in the past.
As a medical doctor, Ron Paul swore the Hippocratic Oath many decades ago. His entire person and career is a monument to the beauty and sanctity of human life. Ron Paul knows that life without health can be very difficult and is not what it was meant to be. He has personally cared for the poor for many years, without asking anything in return.
The government’s original role is to protect our freedoms and restrain itself from causing too much harm. Ron Paul is working to prevent greedy bureaucrats, opportunist politicians and corrupt pharmaceutical companies from having any sort of unhealthy influence over our bodies and minds.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us put the government back where it belongs: to Washington DC and out of our daily lives.
Please read and comment.
Citing Ron Paul about nationalization is like citing Karl Marx about capitalism. They might have legitimate arguments, but their names or credentials mean nothing about the validity of their points, given their extreme political skew. All the points brought up by Ron Paul have already been addressed in the thread.
Tell me if I'm wrong but didn't that Ron Paul thing say in one sentence that healthcare providers would be freed to compete like any other service provider and then in the next that doctors who feel a personal responsibility towards their fellow citizens would help out the needy?
You can't make it a highly competitive business while relying on the charity of the businessmen to fill in the gaps in the service. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Hipster: "I live in Georgia and a lot of people there are ultra-rightwing, you, know, Ron Paul Libertarians. I mean.. uhh umm, they're extremely cynical."
Chomsky: "They think the government is the enemy, that's understandable... like some alien force from Mars that is stealing their money."
Ridiculous, I can't believe I'm even responding to it.
This is not the viewpoint of conservatives like myself, or Ron Paul. This is a strawman fallacy. Ron Paul's politics simply point out that the scope of government has widened beyond what the constitution allows, and that the consequences are a snowball effect of taxation and more intervention.
And after sitting through the drivel and fallacies, he does not refute anything I put forward from the Ron Paul camp. I doubt you even watched the video and you just dumped a google result on me.
And yes, now that I've dropped Ron Paul here come the contrarians that would rather argue about the fact that I've cited him, rather than respond to anything specific I've said. I almost preempted that, but instead I simply won't respond to people who don't engage the specific points.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mgsd.k12.nc.us/emis/lib/emis/cheerleader.jpg)
