|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted December 25, 2009 02:03 AM |
|
|
*adds Bak to the list of people who don't know what they are talking about*
What's with all these people from other countries who think they know so much more about the US than the Americans do?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 02:05 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 02:10, 25 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
and not public, ineffecient, wasteful government-controlled beaurocracy.
And this is the only type of government? A good description of your local town governing body is it?
It's an excellent description of the US government. And it's one of THE biggest arguments against the health care plan.
If you're going to pick a goal-tender for the team, are you going to pick the guy who has a history of missing 2 out of 5 shots at the goal, and cost five times as much as a goal-tender who is much better?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 02:07 AM |
|
|
Of course I don't know what I'm talking about.
And it will remain that way until your explanation stops coming down to "I know what I'm talking about" 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 02:11 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 02:15, 25 Dec 2009.
|
Which part of what we've said don't you understand?
You said:
Quote:
People are naturally afraid of what is unknown and alien.
Likewise, Americans are afraid of something suddenly not being about money.
No, we are afraid of what *IS* known. (see Corribus's description of the US government)
And yes, this is mostly about money. That's what insurance is, money. If people have health care it has to be paid for somehow. But aside from costs and implementation issues, I also truly believe this will be WORSE for health care.
____________
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 03:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's an excellent description of the US government. And it's one of THE biggest arguments against the health care plan.
It's not as if private plans suddenly disappear when a government plan is available. Also, what should the government control if that is your working definition. Nothing. Not the military the economy etc.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 03:46 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:47, 25 Dec 2009.
|
Corribus didn't describe the government itself but what he believes is an example of a public health care system. I think the key bit in determining that is the part where he says "government-controlled". Cause, well, most governments are government-controlled ^^
Now, you guys claim that we Europeans (if you'll allow me to be so bold to call my country European) can't know anything about your problems since we're not from the USA, but you seem to know an awful lot about social healthcare systems - characteristic for Europe. You also appear to believe that for some reason they wouldn't work out for you.
That's the bit you didn't explain too well, why do you think it works for a bunch of Brits and vikings but wouldn't for you guys. And a "corrupt government" is a rather ridiculous explanation since I haven't so far heard of a different one.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 05:28 AM |
|
|
Death:
Quote:
these are all from the US dragging it down
The UK has bad food because it's the US is dragging it down? 
Angelito:
I think it's time for Americans to become more rationally self-interested, and not tie themselves down. Community is one thing, and may be beneficial, but too often it's just a trojan horse for oppression.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 05:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People are naturally afraid of what is unknown and alien.
Likewise, Americans are afraid of something suddenly not being about money.
Do you think a government-run health care system is not about money?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 05:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
why do you think it works for a bunch of Brits and vikings
It doesn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 06:33 AM |
|
|
|
I'm not following the link from community->oppression. Neither do I see what the relationship between the US and UK (on the subject of food no less) has to do with health care.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 06:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not following the link from community->oppression.
Community>individual is a very common theme in dictatorial societies.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 06:37 AM |
|
|
No that is Oligarchy or Meritocracy > than individual.
Rational self-interest is great until you are the one getting shafted.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 06:44 AM |
|
|
One doesn't get "shafted" except by the government. Look at Stalin and Hitler. They all preached subservience by the individual to some greater entity. That sure turned out great, didn't it? Not to mention a bunch of minor dictators did similar things on a smaller scale.
Where the individual is revered, we have wealth, a good standard of living, and a well-functioning society.
Where the community is held above the individual, we have poverty and oppression.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 06:55 AM |
|
|
Collapsing all government to dictators would be the same as my collapsing all revered individuals to some toothless homeless guy in a major city. Great standard of living there. I'm sure his healthcare options are fabulous too.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 07:00 AM |
|
|
Sure, the current system isn't perfect (and reform is necessary). But this reform will only make things worse. It'll make more people look like that - not fewer. I've had experiences with universal health care, and, as a result, I have permanently bad vision that not even glasses can fix.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 07:02 AM |
|
|
OMG OMG, there's a picture of a homeless person (or so it's implied). In a country of 300 million people you found a homeless person. OMG, what are we going to do? We're all doomed!
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 07:21 AM |
|
|
Mock all you like, a society where basic needs could be met for every single person but aren't is not well-functioning.
As mvass pointed out that doesn't mean this particular solution is the best one.
What is your ideal health care system, Binabik, or Mvass, or TD or anyone who would care to answer? This thread is missing fine details and that leads to a tremendous amount of misinterpretation. I seem to be misunderstanding blanket generalizations.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 08:21 AM |
|
|
It wasn't really mockery, it had a valid point. You talk about "a society where basic needs could be met for every single person". And I say in a country with 300 million people that's an impossibility. Furthermore I don't think it should even be a goal, nor even discussed, when we are talking about something as huge as the health care system in the US.
Simultaneously talking about a huge macro-economic system and the smallest detailed micro-economic system just causes too many problems.
Maybe I should rephrase what I said. It's ALL about individuals. You just can't be too concerned about any one particular individual. If you start with the belief that everyone should have health care, and then scale up to the macro level (which is what this is all about), then the goal no longer is to include every single individual. The goal is to include as many as realistically possible in the system, with the knowledge that 100% success is totally unrealistic. That's the only way to remain focused on the goal at the macro-economic level.
And for the record, the majority of existing homeless people in the US ALREADY have food, housing and health care opportunities available. They just don't take advantage of them for one reason or another. Mostly because of mental illness, drug use and alcohol use.
But if they don't take advantage of services that are provided, what are you supposed to do? Force them? Yes, that is a real option, but it is a good one??? And if that's not an option, how will any health care reform in the US affect those homeless people? It won't.
Courts in this country will sometimes force people into mental illness, drug, and alcohol programs, but they are reluctant to do so. To my knowledge it's normally only done in cases when they are an obvious threat to themselves or others, and most likely the family of the person requests it, or they've been arrested for some crime related to their condition.
Quote:
What is your ideal health care system, Binabik
I have absolutely no freaking idea.....and neither does the government. THAT is the problem with what the government is doing. We are talking about a subject that is extremely complex to the point that probably no individual in the world can fully understand all the various facets of it. We are talking about a health care system that's bigger than the gross national product of many countries (and not just little tiny countries, but fairly large countries). We are talking about things that are extremely important and will affect things many decades into the future.
We are talking about things when nobody knows just what the effects will be. And we have a totally inept government that is trying to take the whole damn thing and completely overhaul something that has evolved over hundreds of years....all in one shot. No doing little test programs. No trying some small incremental changes to see how it works out before moving on to the next step (if needed). They want to take a system with some problems, but is still a darn good health care system, and roll the dice with it, hoping like hell it's not a disaster. And that's is irresponsible as hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 08:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mock all you like, a society where basic needs could be met for every single person but aren't is not well-functioning.
I reject the idea of "needs", as it's very subjective. A society as prosperous as that in the US is successful. Period.
As for what kind of health care system I'd like - I want to see more focus on personal responsibility. For example, health savings accounts - people saving for their own health needs is good. Insurance itself needs to be cut back upon - there should only be catastrophic health insurance. After all, the goal is to spread risk, so it makes no sense to cover routine things that everyone knows will happen (like regular visits to the doctor, etc). Then, it'll just be reducing the impact of having to pay for an expensive (and, on average, unlikely) illness. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, so why should health insurance cover routine checkups? It's only adding to the cost unnecessarily.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2009 08:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, so why should health insurance cover routine checkups? It's only adding to the cost unnecessarily.
What if the oil change averts having to overhaul the engine? There's a very valid logic to both sides of that, but I don't know what the number crunching says about it. I wouldn't trust any numbers I see on it anyway because of the politics involved and the difficulty in estimating such numbers.
In general, I'm all for preventive health care, but I have no idea how to implement such a thing and who should pay for it.
But this gets very close to a big problem with the current system ... people who take no personal responsibility and take advantage of the system. For example going to the emergency room of the hospital for a headache, all at tax payers expense. There are a lot of people who have no regular doctor, but instead go to the emergency room for everything.
My sister asked our family doctor about health care reform and he replied outright that it wouldn't work. One of the reasons he cited was that it didn't give people a vested interest and didn't contain any provisions for personal responsibility. The example he gave was a patient who weighed 300 pounds, was a couch potato, ate like crap, and was severely diabetic. She didn't do a damn thing to improve her health, get exercise or eat right. She didn't even take her diabetic medicine regularly, nor test her blood sugar like she should. So she just kept coming back to the doctor more and more often with ever increasing and more expensive problems, and expected taxpayers to pay for it all.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
