Universal health insurance

[Oscarthecat]

Because your argument is that nationalized businesses are somehow worse, pointing to how “many” of them are private/charity. Not all."

You’re really stretching to criticize me here, aren’t you.

Let me explain a little more clearly-

Right now, we live in a society that allows “many” private/volunteer/charitable organizations that provide social services and healthcare.

You envision a society that allows “ONE,” the government.

I guess I just assumed that most people would be able to intuitively understand the problem with limiting the entire country’s available choices from “many” to “one” healthcare provider.

The funny thing is that you accuse me of twisting your words later. But anyway: no. The federal government mandates that you must have insurance. This in no way means that they have control over it. Only the states would have control over it.

The states would have control over what they do with federal funding, within the bounds of what the federal government earmarks that money for, and each state’s eligibility for that money would be contingent upon meeting specific criteria.

For example, right now the federal government is considering enforcing a 55mph national speed limit. The way they would enforce this is by making each state’s eligibility to receive certain funds contingent upon that state maintaining the 55mph speed limit.

The federal government doesn’t just give money to states without attaching strings.

It doesn’t have to be the same.

so, the federal government can’t seem to regulate schools effectively to yield consistently positive results, but that will be completely different with healthcare because…“it doesn’t have to be the same?”

Hmmm…I saw a bumper-sticker once that defined insanity as when someone does the same thing, in the same way, but with the firm belief that they will get different results.

This is not to imply that education will never work, it just means that the current system is awful.

And yet, private education is pretty good by comparison…and private schools maintain lower costs per student, have happier teachers, lower instances of behavioral problems, and greater parental involvement…

that’s weird.

I’m always befuddled when somebody makes that argument. We’re all human beings, aren’t we? It’s not like Europeans are fundamentally any different from Americans.

Now if I, as a heartless conservative, made this comment, I would be accused of being culturally insensitive, of being ignorant of the rich diversity of the world, and of being a quazi-imperialistic jerk who thinks everyone should be like us.

You misunderstand.

No. I don’t. I understand perfectly. I just disagree with you.

Why do you assume that just because I disagree with you that I don’t understand your position?

You will have to pay for UHC just like everybody else will.

So you’re forcing this program on me against my will.

However, you can opt out of public doctors or hospitals if you want your own private health insurance.

Wow, thank you. But by allowing this public/private system aren’t you creating an inherently flawed two tiered system that will
provide high-cost and high-benefit care to the rich, while providing lower quality, although adequate, care to the rest of us?

How is that fair? Don’t all people have a right to the same quality of healthcare?

So you agree: public ownership of something isn’t always bad.

People own businesses, the government runs “programs.”

Don’t confuse the two.

I am by no means a socialist, but I do think that government ownership of something doesn’t magically make it worse, just like the free-market doesn’t magically make something better.

I don’t believe in magic.

Very well, then don’t rely on old posts as a rebuttal.

I’m not going to limit myself just because you don’t want to read previous posts.

My point was: you find it morally objectionable to pay for something owned by the government. Therefore, simply by paying ANY taxes you are violating your own maxims, since you’re already funding public education.

That’s right.

But the problem is that I have a competing value, which is that my family needs to have a safe place to live. If I stopped paying taxes, then the government would assess fines and confiscate our assets. Essentially, they would take away our home and put us out on the street.

That is, after all, what you are proposing when you say that you want taxes to pay for something.

You are using the threat of government force to make people bend to your will.

 

[sodak]

Pharmaceuticals will become just one more successful industry that the socialists in this country have forced out through high taxation, excessive restrictions, and the threat of nationalizing industry.

Those companies will simply open up shop in other countries that don’t punish people for being successful-

Don’t get me started here. My wife has her Doctorate in Pharmacy and has been participating in clinical trials and getting drugs to the market for the past 20 years. The idiocy displayed by the govt. is mind boggling, and I get a first hand view of it, courtesy of my wife.

 

[stinkcat_14]

R&D is not a separate issue. It is part and parcel of drug costs, and the reason we pay more and they pay less is because they cheat. By making it impossible for companies to recoup R&D costs on drugs sold in Canada, they throw the whole R&D cost on the American consumer.

The Europeans and Canadians combined used to outspend us in R&D by a huge margin. Since 1990, they have virtually killed their R&D. Do you want to kill American R&D as well, and stop all progress in drugs?

Could this just be shrewd bargaining on the part of Canada? If we both played the same game, the results would be disasterous. But from Canada’s point of view, it seems that they make out pretty good. After all, they have a much smaller economy, so a reduction in their drug research wouldn’t harm them as much, and it is possible that the benefit in lower drug costs offsets the harm due to fewer drugs produced. It seems that since there is one drug buyer in Canada (the government) they get to dictate the terms to Pfizer, Merc, etc. Is this necessarily a bad policy?

Now I am just talking about their drug policy, not the rest of their healthcare system.

 

[cynic]

Wow, thank you. But by allowing this public/private system aren’t you creating an inherently flawed two tiered system that will
provide high-cost and high-benefit care to the rich, while providing lower quality, although adequate, care to the rest of us?

Which is better than no guarantee of care at all for one fifth of the population.

How is that fair? Don’t all people have a right to the same quality of healthcare?

This contradicts just about everything you’ve said ie nobody has a ‘right’ to such thing, especially if it involves taxing others to get it.

I think what you mean is everyone having the opportunity for affordable, good quality care. Which might be a reality if the marketplace operated perfectly.

 

[Oscarthecat]

This contradicts just about everything you’ve said ie nobody has a ‘right’ to such thing, especially if it involves taxing others to get it.

I think what you mean is everyone having the opportunity for affordable, good quality care. Which might be a reality if the marketplace operated perfectly.

Wow. You are so eager to attack me that you completely missed that I was, albeit a bit sarcastically, pointing out the contradiction in your cohort’s position, who was simultaneously promoting “universal” healthcare AND a two tiered system that favors those with greater financial resources.

You see, several proponents of UHC on this thread have specifically said that it is unfair that people with money have access to better care than those who don’t- so then one of you said that UHC would create a two tiered system favoring those with money. Then I responded by taking the traditional UHC.

I’m really kind of suprised. What I was actually expecting was that you, in your eagerness to attack me, would find a way to accuse me of hating poor people again.

But anyway, you did a nice job of restating my position fairly accurately in your last comment. Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to say it again.

 

[cynic]

You see, several proponents of UHC on this thread have specifically said that it is unfair that people with money have access to better care than those who don’t- so then one of you said that UHC would create a two tiered system favoring those with money. Then I responded by taking the traditional UHC.
.

In a purely market system, either you can afford insurance for yourself and any dependants, or you can’t. So the main argument for UHC is that in the free market you either get care, or you don’t.

I’m really kind of suprised. What I was actually expecting was that you, in your eagerness to attack me, would find a way to accuse me of hating poor people again.

That bit’s just in your imagination. Noone said you hated the poor. It just seems as if you place priority on other things over healthcare, like liberty, freedom etc, some ideal of Christian Charity that needn’t involve government. Those things are *more important * than some guarantee of healthcare for low income individuals. Not the same as hating.

Cherio.

 

[EphelDuath]

You envision a society that allows “ONE,” the government.

No, and nothing I have said indicated this. I envision a society where anybody can get health care from the government if they so choose.

The federal government doesn’t just give money to states without attaching strings.

So? What’s your point? That doesn’t mean that D.C. is in charge of your health care. All that means is that D.C. makes sure you get it.

so, the federal government can’t seem to regulate schools effectively to yield consistently positive results, but that will be completely different with healthcare because…“it doesn’t have to be the same?”

The federal government won’t be regulating health care so this point is moot.

Hmmm…I saw a bumper-sticker once that defined insanity as when someone does the same thing, in the same way, but with the firm belief that they will get different results.

I’m insane because I think two unrelated government programs don’t have to be run the same? Ah, OK. Gotcha.

And yet, private education is pretty good by comparison…and private schools maintain lower costs per student, have happier teachers, lower instances of behavioral problems, and greater parental involvement…

One: no, private education is more expensive than public. Probably because you have to pay for private education.

I don’t see what your point is, though. If education was exactly like health care, nobody would want UHC. The free-market is some mysterious force that makes everything cheaper and better, and all poor people would never have to care about their medicine again.

And health care in other countries would be horrid compared to ours, which isn’t the case.

Now if I, as a heartless conservative, made this comment, I would be accused of being culturally insensitive, of being ignorant of the rich diversity of the world, and of being a quazi-imperialistic jerk who thinks everyone should be like us.

I certainly don’t think that.

Why do you assume that just because I disagree with you that I don’t understand your position?

Probably because you said something that is indicative that you misunderstood me. You took half of that paragraph out of context and said that I was contradicting myself.

So you’re forcing this program on me against my will.

Just like you’re being forced to pay for national defense, yes.

Wow, thank you. But by allowing this public/private system aren’t you creating an inherently flawed two tiered system that will
provide high-cost and high-benefit care to the rich, while providing lower quality, although adequate, care to the rest of us?

Not like it’s fair right now, either. Some people don’t get ANY health care whereas the rich can smoke a pack of cigars a day but not worry about the bills.

How is that fair? Don’t all people have a right to the same quality of healthcare?

I don’t see how your plan will allow for such a thing either. There is no flawless solution in the matter: but UHC is just the cheapest and most fair.

I’m not going to limit myself just because you don’t want to read previous posts.

So what you want me to do is spend up to maybe 30 minutes digging through old posts in order to read something that I am honestly not interested in, simply because you don’t want to repeat the same argument?

That is, after all, what you are proposing when you say that you want taxes to pay for something.

You are using the threat of government force to make people bend to your will.

Not anymore than the government already “forces” you to fund national defense.

In this debate, you’ve called me a hypocrite and implied that I’m insane, when I’ve done nothing of the sort to provoke any sort of aggression. Stop demonizing me just because you disagree with my opinions.

 

[marci]

Considering the state of morality in this country, would abortion be covered under universal healthcare? Would any woman seeking an abortion for any reason be able to have the government totally or even partially fund the procedure?

What about birth control? Would all pills, diaphrams, norplants, iud’s, vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc. fall under the umbrella of government healthcare?

If catholics in this country want universal government healthcare, they better be ready to deal with what our Godless public officials throw at them.

Be careful what you wish for. Nothing in life is “free”.

 

[Oscarthecat]

That bit’s just in your imagination. Noone said you hated the poor. It just seems as if you place priority on other things over healthcare, like liberty, freedom etc, some ideal of Christian Charity that needn’t involve government. Those things are *more important * than some guarantee of healthcare for low income individuals. Not the same as hating.
Cherio.

You’re right, I stand corrected. You didn’t say that I hated people.
You just said I think poor people are worthless, and that I would rather they were dead than give them any of my money.

Well it seemed like you think they should believe themselves worthless, because the money comes from tax, via “government force”:doh2:

Again, it would be better, more ethical, to be dead than receive healthcare this way, right?

It would be better for those on low incomes die than receive care via taxpayer funding.

It would be better for those without the means to shut-up disapear into a corner somewhere and drop dead than for the state to forcibly take .01% of your income, or anyone else’s.

If you have read all of my posts, and genuinely believe that I would rather see people dead than help them, I don’t have anything more to say to you.

My point all along has been that Socialists do not have enough faith in God or in human beings to trust that, more often than not, human beings will choose what is right and good when left to their own devices. Socialized medicine is just one more program that exploits the destructive socialist myth of the proletariat and the bourgeois that divides society into two diametrically opposed groups that are perpetually in conflict with one another.

This myth convinces those in need that it is their right to take from those with means because those with means have failed in their social obligation to share their wealth. Socialism judges human nature as essentially selfish, and awards the state the ultimate power to decide who is worthy of receiving the benefits of labor. Thus the state becomes the ultimate arbiter of the public good, as the individual is deemed unable to choose for himself how to behave responsibly in society. Concepts such as human kindness, and Christian Charity are deemed unnecessary and inefficient because they depend upon individual freedom, which is ultimately uncontrollable at the state level. Consequently, systems which promote concepts like free will, human kindness, and Christian Charity are branded as naive and outmoded, ultimately inefficient and unreliable in comparison to the almighty government- this is why Socialist regimes are vehemently anti-religious.

It is wrong to replace Christian Charity with threats of violence and mandatory compliance that form the infrastructure of any socialist regime, including Universal Health Care. The ends never justify the means. If you use violence to forcibly redistribute wealth, then you inevitably create a mutual distrust and resentment between those you are stealing from and those you are giving to. Those you are stealing from resent the people you are trying to help because they feel like the recipients of their stolen property are complicit in your misdeeds. Those you are redistributing wealth to feel they are entitled to it, and resent those it was stolen from because they don’t think it is right to feel forced to steal what they were entitled to in the first place. The state, as the arbiter of both groups, convinces one that it is the only thing protecting them from having everything stolen by the unwashed masses, rather than just the portion the state steals. It convinces the other group that those with means would enslave and kill them if not for the protection of the government. Thus, the state perpetuates the myth that it is necessary to regulate the individual, because it has convinced these two groups that it is the only thing protecting them from each other. Universal healthcare would perpetuate this myth because it would perpetuate the illusion that the state is necessary, very literally, for the health and well being of the sick and the poor.

The only way you can foster a widespread attitude of social responsibility, human kindness, and Christian Charity is to encourage a society that respects the inviolable right of individuals to freely choose to do good or bad. This is the only way that people can authentically engage in socially responsible behaviors. As society is defined by the individuals within it, this is also the only way that we can foster a society that is genuinely oriented toward the common good.

Again, if you can’t bring yourself to admit that my opposition to your socialist values does not mean that I am a selfish person who hates the poor, I don’t know what else to say to you.

 

[cynic]

This is how I read the posts:

You would rather people not be treated than be *FORCED *to help them via government.

This is because you’ve put *PRIORITY *on Christian Charity over the outcome. A postive outcome would never justify removing Christian Charity from the process.

All of which means, if UHC could work, you would still object to it.

That doesn’t mean you want them to die, that you’re indifferent, or that you wouldn’t give voluntarily.

Ignoring the crucial bits of sentences, removing nuances, means endless repetition, which is pretty boring eh?

 

[pathia]

For what it’s worth, there is at least one safety net in the US that caught me. I’m going to end up disabled enough to qualify for government assistance. Unemployment too, as I am being let go from work, there is simply no way I can do my job anymore. At least not for so long as to be pointless. I wasn’t at it long enough to get full benefits yet, so there’s little they can do per policies, but disability will help a little.

I really wish it didn’t take this much though. At least the bill collectors stopped. I’m pretty depressed now, I really don’t know what to do anymore, I’m not going to be able to do most things I used to enjoy ever again.

 

[cynic]

My point all along has been that Socialists do not have enough faith in God or in human beings to trust that, more often than not, human beings will choose what is right and good when left to their own devices. Socialized medicine is just one more program that exploits the destructive socialist myth of the proletariat and the bourgeois that divides society into two diametrically opposed groups that are perpetually in conflict with one another.
.

We only need to look as far back as industrialization in the 19th century to see evidence of this kindness and charity between the ‘classes’. Child labour, workhouses, people treated like machines, a good percentage of the population still unable to read. The basis of capitalist theory on labour : the only reliable thing to ensure humane conditions and liveable wages is *competition *for employees. It has as negative a view of human nature as socialism.

. Concepts such as human kindness, and Christian Charity are deemed unnecessary and inefficient because they depend upon individual freedom, which is ultimately uncontrollable at the state level. Consequently, systems which promote concepts like free will, human kindness, and Christian Charity are branded as naive and outmoded, ultimately inefficient and unreliable in comparison to the almighty government
.

But what if they *are *unreliable and inefficient. Can charity make sure everyone in need gets the same assistance, which would be the only fair outcome as far as the recipients are concerned.

It is wrong to replace Christian Charity with threats of violence and mandatory compliance that form the infrastructure of any socialist regime, including Universal Health Care.
.

Why would threats of violence and mandatory compliance cause resentment if your money was likely to end up in the same place anyway?

The ends never justify the means. If you use violence to forcibly redistribute wealth, then you inevitably create a mutual distrust and resentment between those you are stealing from and those you are giving to. Those you are stealing from resent the people you are trying to help because they feel like the recipients of their stolen property are complicit in your misdeeds. Those you are redistributing wealth to feel they are entitled to it, and resent those it was stolen from because they don’t think it is right to feel forced to steal what they were entitled to in the first place.
.

In a sense they are entitled to sopmething. If there was enough profit being made - enough money going around - to pay for UHC and education, then there was enough money for a minor pay rise for those who could most do with it. so they could save for those services on their own. Either the government funds some services for the poor, or it stays out of this but raises the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Both are a kind of forced redistribution. Is there such a moral problem with this if many aren’t receiving an adequate share of the profit they helped generate?

The only way you can foster a widespread attitude of social responsibility, human kindness, and Christian Charity is to encourage a society that respects the inviolable right of individuals to freely choose to do good or bad. This is the only way that people can authentically engage in socially responsible behaviors. As society is defined by the individuals within it, this is also the only way that we can foster a society that is genuinely oriented toward the common good.
.

That’s all theory, and the kind that has occurred to everyone.

 

[EphelDuath]

My point all along has been that Socialists do not have enough faith in God or in human beings to trust that, more often than not, human beings will choose what is right and good when left to their own devices. Socialized medicine is just one more program that exploits the destructive socialist myth of the proletariat and the bourgeois that divides society into two diametrically opposed groups that are perpetually in conflict with one another.

Since I don’t ascribe to that belief whatsoever, I don’t see how I can be considered a Marxist, socialist or communist. In fact, by the standards of America, I’m relatively conservative: I oppose high minimum wages, social security and unemployment welfare.

My belief in universal health care is not philosophical but pragmatic. It clearly works better, it’s more just, it’s more efficient. If that weren’t true, I would support the best system available.

What laissez-fairists suggest is the exact opposite: even if UHC is clearly better, we should oppose it because lazy people don’t deserve medicine as they have not earned it. I vehemently disagree with that. Lazy people don’t deserve TVs, or fancy dinners, or lavish houses. But they do deserve medicine. A hospital will treat a homeless man having a heart attack, why won’t they give him meds? Just because he happens to be lazy?

I also point out that many Rothbardians, anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists – ultra laissez-faire advocates – would say that hospitals shouldn’t even treat poor having heart attacks. This is clearly Social Darwinism. The middle ground, what we have now, is essentially the same thing, only “unjust” as opposed to “outright cruel.” They mostly comprise of atheists as well, who believe that a man’s worth is all that matters, not his humanity. So there is Godlessness on both ends of the spectrum, it is not fair to simply say “capitalism = Christian, socialism = atheism.”

You continue to bring up the issue of violence, that somehow we’re forcing you to pay for UHC. This is not the case. If you don’t want to pay taxes, you may move to a country with less. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the U.S. and fund things you hate. What you don’t get to do is benefit from public taxation without contributing. That is tax evasion. It is stealing, and it is a crime. We would only be using violence to force you to pay taxes if we said that you could not leave the U.S.

 

[BamaRider]

Since I don’t ascribe to that belief whatsoever, I don’t see how I can be considered a Marxist, socialist or communist. In fact, by the standards of America, I’m relatively conservative: I oppose high minimum wages, social security and unemployment welfare.

My belief in universal health care is not philosophical but pragmatic. It clearly works better, it’s more just, it’s more efficient. If that weren’t true, I would support the best system available.

What laissez-fairists suggest is the exact opposite: even if UHC is clearly better, we should oppose it because lazy people don’t deserve medicine as they have not earned it. I vehemently disagree with that. Lazy people don’t deserve TVs, or fancy dinners, or lavish houses. But they do deserve medicine. A hospital will treat a homeless man having a heart attack, why won’t they give him meds? Just because he happens to be lazy?

I also point out that many Rothbardians, anarcho-capitalists and Objectivists – ultra laissez-faire advocates – would say that hospitals shouldn’t even treat poor having heart attacks. This is clearly Social Darwinism. The middle ground, what we have now, is essentially the same thing, only “unjust” as opposed to “outright cruel.” They mostly comprise of atheists as well, who believe that a man’s worth is all that matters, not his humanity. So there is Godlessness on both ends of the spectrum, it is not fair to simply say “capitalism = Christian, socialism = atheism.”

You continue to bring up the issue of violence, that somehow we’re forcing you to pay for UHC. This is not the case. If you don’t want to pay taxes, you may move to a country with less. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the U.S. and fund things you hate. What you don’t get to do is benefit from public taxation without contributing. That is tax evasion. It is stealing, and it is a crime. We would only be using violence to force you to pay taxes if we said that you could not leave the U.S.

Are you in favor blanketing the 15 miillion illegal aliiens wiith health care?

 

[EphelDuath]

Are you in favor blanketing the 15 miillion illegal aliiens wiith health care?

If we give them amnesty and they pay their fair share of taxes, absolutely.

 

[BamaRider]

Do you want to grant them amnesty?

 

[EphelDuath]

Do you want to grant them amnesty?

This is a completely different issue, of which I am far less passionate about. But my opinion is that deporting them all is unrealistic, but we can’t let unregulated immigration continue. So I would grant complete amnesty to all immigrants currently here that don’t have criminal records, then seal the border and make legal immigration much easier. This is a win-win in my eyes: the people here get paid minimum wage, immigration is now much easier but we still keep the criminals out.

 

[BamaRider]

This is a completely different issue, of which I am far less passionate about. But my opinion is that deporting them all is unrealistic, but we can’t let unregulated immigration continue. So I would grant complete amnesty to all immigrants currently here that don’t have criminal records, then seal the border and make legal immigration much easier. This is a win-win in my eyes: the people here get paid minimum wage, immigration is now much easier but we still keep the criminals out.

It is a different topic, but let me tie it in, because if you go UHC, you’re gonna hafta to address this problem.

You want to make citizens of 15 million illegals, then grant them healthcare. Do you realize how many people that is?

My solution is seal the border, lock it down whatever means necessary, round up the 15 million best we can, and I don’t care how long it takes. I understand many are showing up in hospitals demanding healthcare, but thats another issue.

 

[ribozyme]

It is a different topic, but let me tie it in, because if you go UHC, you’re gonna hafta to address this problem.

You want to make citizens of 15 million illegals, then grant them healthcare. Do you realize how many people that is?

My solution is seal the border, lock it down whatever means necessary, round up the 15 million best we can, and I don’t care how long it takes. I understand many are showing up in hospitals demanding healthcare, but thats another issue.

Yeah, you can still have a supply of cheap labor when abortion rights are restricted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That won’t stop all progress in drugs, Vern. Just OUR progress.

Where will that progress occur? The Europeans and Canadians have already virtually killed their progress with their price laws. We are the only country remaining with a vigorous, privately-funded R&D program.

Pharmaceuticals will become just one more successful industry that the socialists in this country have forced out through high taxation, excessive restrictions, and the threat of nationalizing industry.

Those companies will simply open up shop in other countries that don’t punish people for being successful-

There aren’t any such countries – not with the technical and industrial base the pharaceuticals need.