|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm surprised no one has brought this argument up. Why would you want government regulating more things than absolutely necessary? Didn't the 20th century teach us anything? The Soviets (along with other communist nations like China) and the Nazis took control of everything and look at the destruction they caused. I'd imagine that would be the main fear with socialized medicine. It's that you're putting one of the most important things in your life in the hands of the government.
I really don't understand this cherry-picking of extreme examples when it comes to government handling things. Look at the map Salamandre just linked today, do any of those countries look like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union to you?
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:27 AM |
|
|
I don't think you understand how quickly things changed in Germany. Remember, Germany was one of the most productive countries in the late 1800s and early 1900s. People like Albert Einstein, Amalie Noether, and Wagner don't emerge out of underdeveloped countries. How do you think they were able to build huge armies not once, but twice? The Soviet Union was very similar as well. They were literally the first country to enter space. That's absurdly impressive. I would say you have to worry about 1st-world countries WAY more than 2nd or 3rd-world countries. So yes, I would say a lot of those countries don't look like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union right now, but by the time they do, it will be far too late.
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:42 AM |
|
|
|
Neither Germany nor Russia turned into totalitarian regimes because the government started to provide basic service. Such services are not specific to them, even if you wanna go by pure correlation instead of rational causation. If you really think the modern democracies of the world will eventually turn into dictatorships because of such non-ideological service, you're way off. It is too absurd to even consider as a "what if scenario"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:44 AM |
|
|
artu:
The US didn't have universal health care (until Obama's mandate), but there were never any healthcare riots. In fact, I can't think of any social uprisings that were a result of lack of healthcare. Food, yes, but healthcare? As for the question of a productive society - a society in which some people choose to work less has lower GDP, so should people be forced to work more?
And I can't think of how a quantitative leap of existing solutions can lead to no crime.
Also, there's a related point to what dhoney said - if taxpayers are paying for your healthcare, your unhealthy habits impose costs on others. Under a free market, if you want to eat donuts all day long and get heart disease - or, less extreme, if you don't exercise much - if you develop health conditions, you pay for them yourself (or your private insurance company pays). But under taxpayer-funded healthcare, the taxpayers pay, and so they have an incentive to restrict what you can do, so costs can be kept down. (Alternatively, if they don't restrict what you can do, then you have a greater incentive to be unhealthy, because you won't have to pay for the treatment.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:58 AM |
|
|
I was trying to say the main "libertarian" argument is the one that typically applies in this scenario. I'm not saying it's necessarily right or wrong to want to eliminate as much government as possible. I believe i even mentioned the dangers of the private healthcare due to the power of the pharmaceutical companies. I was mainly making the point that the main fear when it comes to socialized medicine should be the fact that the government would be taking more control of our lives. I don't see how that's an illegitimate fear. Sure it's not going to be the only thing that might cause a totalitarian regime, but no totalitarian regime was born overnight with one bit of legislation. They gradually took away power with many bits of legislation that nationalized things like health care. Just like the article I mentioned that showed Norway putting laws on vitamin c doses (absurd because it is impossible to overdose on). First, they're just trying to get free health care to people. Next, they're telling you what you can and can't treat yourself with.
On your other point, the government doesn't "provide" any services. The doctors would still be the actual people providing the service and doing all the work. It's just that the government would have more control over what your doctor can or can't do.
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:02 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:13, 13 Jun 2013.
|
First things first:
Quote:
And I can't think of how a quantitative leap of existing solutions can lead to no crime.
Then you have a problem imagining things: Murder is a crime, police are trying to prevent murders, in an ideal society, there are no murders (or theft, or arson etc etc). Now, without applying to science fiction or fantasy, can we imagine a society with zero murder: YES. Actually there are already countries with very low murder rates, so it's just a quantitative leap.
Without applying to science fiction or fantasy, can we imagine a society where no one dies or gets sick: NO. There's nothing remotely similar to it.
Quote:
Also, there's a related point to what dhoney said - if taxpayers are paying for your healthcare, your unhealthy habits impose costs on others. Under a free market, if you want to eat donuts all day long and get heart disease - or, less extreme, if you don't exercise much - if you develop health conditions, you pay for them yourself (or your private insurance company pays). But under taxpayer-funded healthcare, the taxpayers pay, and so they have an incentive to restrict what you can do, so costs can be kept down. (Alternatively, if they don't restrict what you can do, then you have a greater incentive to be unhealthy, because you won't have to pay for the treatment.)
This nitpicking BS is starting to get on my nerves, if I decide to skip school because I am a lazy student, tax payers money is spoiled again too. That kind of detail is insignificant. You can not make a categorical distinction this way. Also, since you can't actually define what this Olympian God of a free market is, I will ignore any solution suggested by you addressing it. I even made a separate thread, explain your so called free market first.
Quote:
On your other point, the government doesn't "provide" any services. The doctors would still be the actual people providing the service and doing all the work. It's just that the government would have more control over what your doctor can or can't do.
The government would be paying the doctor for his service. That's what providing is. That's what this whole thread is about, government spending on healthcare... Stop playing stupid if you are not.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:26 AM |
|
|
artu:
Current law enforcement methods can't be 100% effective. If you had a perfectly law-abiding cop standing behind every shoulder, maybe you would, but that doesn't fall under current law enforcement methods.
Quote:
if I decide to skip school because I am a lazy student, tax payers money is spoiled again too
You are aware that there are laws against truancy, right? So this applies to education as well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:38 AM |
|
|
I'm obviously not making sense. The person who actually performs the task is the person who provides the service. The German educational system did not come up with the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein did. Yes, the German educational system helped Einstein, but Einstein was the one who provided the service of theory of relativity to humanity. His teachers provided him the service of an education. The government organized the educational system.
But speaking of nitpicking...
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:39 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:53, 13 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Current law enforcement methods can't be 100% effective.
Maybe we should have this discussion in Turkish. A QUANTITATIVE difference is a difference between 87% or 43% and 100%. A qualitative difference is the difference between science-fiction and not science fiction.
And no, that doesn't apply to education as well, because your objection is not based on efficiency. You are not suggesting to make public health or education more efficient. If it was about restrictions regulating public healthcare (or education) that would have meant something.
Quote:
I'm obviously not making sense. The person who actually performs the task is the person who provides the service. The German educational system did not come up with the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein did. Yes, the German educational system helped Einstein, but Einstein was the one who provided the service of theory of relativity to humanity. His teachers provided him the service of an education. The government organized the educational system.
I really dislike people going into this kind of trolling when they have no real idea to answer with, but okay, I'll play your game.
Provide:
1.
to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.
2.
to supply or equip: to provide the army with new fighter planes.
3.
to afford or yield.
Now, if there is one single person here, who does not understand a sentence such as Government should provide better buildings for schools, if there is one more troll, who'll correct this sentence by saying "oh no, the government does not provide buildings, the architects do" please raise your post. I beg you, please.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:05 AM |
|
|
artu:
Enough quantitative differences make a qualitative difference. For example, by itself, a brain cell is just a brain cell, but put enough together and it's a brain. Something similar is true here - if you train police better, are more selective, and hire more of them, eventually it stops being "current methods".
And my point is that if taxpayers are paying for something, they have an incentive to support laws that keep costs down, even if those laws restrict liberty. Truancy laws are one example, and laws against being unhealthy are another.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Enough quantitative differences make a qualitative difference
True but totally irrelevant. I say this:
If it is the fire department or police, you can, at least in an ideal world, reach the optimum goal: Zero fire, zero crime. Healthcare is not like that even in theory: You can not imagine a society with no death and sickness.
You say this:
I can more easily imagine a society with crime but no death or sickness than no crime but death and sickness. If you have a very technologically advanced society, you could have technology that keeps people alive forever, but I think it's likely that at least a few people would still be committing crimes.
I emphasize the difference:
You can imagine a society with no death or sickness in terms of science fiction or fantasy (immortal humans) but they are both fictional platforms. No crime or no fire on the other hand can be imagined with only a quantitative leap of existing solutions. It is still impossible but the platform does not change. Murder is a crime, police are trying to prevent murders, in an ideal society, there are no murders (or theft, or arson etc etc). Now, without applying to science fiction or fantasy, can we imagine a society with zero murder: YES. Actually there are already countries with very low murder rates, so it's just a quantitative leap. Without applying to science fiction or fantasy, can we imagine a society where no one dies or gets sick: NO. There's nothing remotely similar to it.
No quantitative difference turned into a qualitative one. Have some contextual dignity please.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:32 AM |
|
|
The point I'm making is that eliminating all crime altogether would use up so much resources and be such a change in enforcement techniques that it would no longer be correct to call it merely quantitative.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:48 AM |
|
|
Mvass... that doesn't relate to what Artu posted. What he just said was that it was more possible to imagine a world without crime or fires than it was to imagine a world without sickness and death. Not that one or the other was possible, just how easy it is to conceptualize.
Hopefully that stops this endless cycle of repetition and you guys can get to arguing about actual points instead of the (incorrect), "but you said ahujadnm, and I said naidcmah" arguments that have dominated the last page and a half.
((Ooooo, Cor, we have a contestant for your test!))
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:57 AM |
|
|
Gnomes, artu said that it's possible to achieve a world without crime without any qualitative differences. I'm arguing that it's impossible.
Not that this is relevant to healthcare, so I'll stop here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:05 AM |
|
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 04:02 PM |
|
|
So the U.S. government provides my healthcare. I underwent surgery a few years ago to have a bone removed from my foot. My out of pocket expenses were $0.
My prescription medications cost $8 per monthly supply, up to a cap of say $720 annually. Once this threshold is reached, then I'm no longer obligated to pay anymore for the rest of the year.
This is a good deal and one I am supposedly entitled to based off of my military service. I contend that this deal should be extended to all Amerians by right of their citizenship. The U.S. has a wildly popular program in place called Medicare and within that framework it would be a helluva lot easier to institute cradle to grave Medicare than these stupid subsidies and marketplaces for for profit healthcare providers.
Of course the taxes to support such a program would have to be increased. Where might such monies be found? Easy. By decoupling employer obligations from healthcare our companies would be better able to compete in a global economy. We also spend some $1.3 trillion annually in combined military and DHS. Our uber wealthy have ridiculously low tax rates and all they've shown with their extra income is an interest in keeping even more for themselves. Snow them.
While I'm at it, snow libertarians and their mememe philosophy. They are small, petty people who cannot see past their own self-interest. The U.S. is in global competition with the likes of China and we do not have time for this kind of bs. Snow baby boomers who have done nothing to address the complex issues of our day and who allowed the healthcare crisis in our country linger for decades.
You want a free market? I say let the government step in and offer cradle to grave medicare in direct competition to the for profit sector. If they say no, snow them. They're not truly interested in a free market, but more socialism for the so-called uber-elite.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would you want government regulating more things than absolutely necessary? Didn't the 20th century teach us anything? The Soviets (along with other communist nations like China) and the Nazis took control of everything and look at the destruction they caused.
Being from a former Eastern Bloc country, I can assure you that the health care was MUCH better during the pre-'89 times (as well as the education, the crime mitigation and other social services). You people should learn to read not only the propaganda stuff, really. The USSR and its allies generated a lot of crap past WW2 for both their own citizens and the outside world but there are things that they managed to do well. Same applies to the western democracies. It's very hard to use only black and white when you seriously discuss such issues.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:18, 13 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Of course the taxes to support such a program would have to be increased.
Yes, taxes would have to go up astronomically. Taking from one person to give to another. Exactly what the founders said the Constitution did not authorize the government to do.
We've seen numerous abuses of power in the past few months by the government. Why should we trust the federal government to run a national healthcare program when it seems it can't run tax collection fairly or the environmental protection agency fairly and constantly spies on the citizens via their phone calls, Skype, yahoo, Google, and who knows what else? Governments always want more, more, more power...and more, more, more tax revenue. A national health care system would be politicized just as Washington politicizes everything else. And would grow more and more costly each year in politicians efforts to buy more and more votes.
Quote:
By decoupling employer obligations from healthcare our companies would be better able to compete in a global economy.
How is that? The cooperation already pay the highest tax rate in the world and would have to pay an even higher tax rate to pay for the massive increase in public spending. And your "soak the rich" idea won't work either. You could confiscate all the monies of the richest people in the US and still not be able to finance such a thing. And the rich are not going to allow themselves to continue to be abused. They'll have no reason to expand their businesses when the government takes an ever increasing amount of their profits to pay for an ever increasing health care system.
Quote:
While I'm at it, snow libertarians and their mememe philosophy. They are small, petty people who cannot see past their own self-interest. The U.S. is in global competition with the likes of China and we do not have time for this kind of bs. Snow baby boomers who have done nothing to address the complex issues of our day and who allowed the healthcare crisis in our country linger for decades.
I find your comments quite unfair. Libertarians are not all about "mememe," nor are they "small, petty people." I'd be more inclined to say people who want ever increasing health care "benefits" (and other benefits) from the government are all about "mememe," not people who simply want to be left alone to live their lives in peace.
The below example shows why welfare (in terms of health care or otherwise) does not work. A 33 year old man in Tennessee has 22 kids by 14 different women. Guess who is providing for the kids? Not the man or the mothers. Taxpayers. $7524 per month for the kids from the tax payers, and that is not considering any medical treatment they may need, what the Mommys get for subsidized housing (and other subsidized stuff) or the social worker costs, or the continual court costs for the child support claims against him or various other costs.
Clicky
When a person has "no skin in the game" he can live as irresponsibly as he wants and he's not going to "pay." The repercussions will be felt by the hard working, productive members of society instead.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
snow libertarians and their mememe philosophy. They are small, petty people who cannot see past their own self-interest
That's because there's nothing past one's own self-interest. Why should anyone support a policy that doesn't benefit them?
Quote:
You want a free market? I say let the government step in and offer cradle to grave medicare in direct competition to the for profit sector.
This wouldn't be free-market competition, as government-sponsored healthcare would have a source of income that is outside the market - taxpayer dollars.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:23 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin. Nice that you've put an entire cornucopia of right wing fantasies into one post. Shredding them at one time should be all the easier.
@ Mvass. Wrong. By all means the government should be allowed to offer healthcare in these exchanges. Amazing what might happen to insurance rates when you don't have to spend billions on marketing or CEO salaries.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
