|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted December 27, 2009 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But it's pretty obvious that you're aggressing.
I don't think so at all, not in all cases. That's what I was saying about playing by the rules. You want the government to acknowledge and protect your property, so why the long face when it decides to take some of your income you think you deserve, but in actuality, you may not even deserve your "property"?
Because your property, like the weaker people (in health), are both part of a society: the moment one appears, it affects it all. For example, the moment you have property is the moment you deny everyone else access to that area. You could say it's an aggression towards their rights too 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 03:24 AM |
|
|
Ah, the weaker people.
Has it ever occurred to you that the people are weak BECAUSE the government provided for them? Because in the US that is exactly what has happened. The government CREATED weak people. They created a large class of people who have become entirely dependent on the government. The government has robbed them of their humanity, robbed them of their dignity, robbed them of their motivation, robbed them of their ability to think for themselves.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 03:33 AM |
|
|
I don't think there's much dignity and thinking involved in getting sick or being born sick or weak (weak in the immune system sense). Or maybe just unlucky to get an infection/virus or whatever. Or even handicapped, but I guess you are at least 'pro' that right? (or the gov is already that way).
Let's get a more extreme example. I'm pretty sure that if a virus were to infect a certain area (natural 'disaster', but in health-related), it's the people's fault for not thinking enough and losing their dignity, lazy-bones they are!
You know, like the victims in the other natural disasters. It's their fault!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 03:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You want the government to acknowledge and protect your property, so why the long face when it decides to take some of your income you think you deserve
I'm willing to pay for the government to protect my and other people's properties (if other people pay too, of course), because it's more effective that way. Defence and police are public goods, so if I were to try to accomplish them myself, other people would be free riders on it. So, to minimise that, there has to be public defence/police. Likewise, there are aspects of health care that are public goods. For example, I believe the government should give out vaccinations. But preventing a contagious disease and treating non-contagious ones are different.
Quote:
You know, like the victims in the other natural disasters.
Well, in many cases, they chose to live there, so they took the risk.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 04:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm willing to pay for the government to protect my and other people's properties (if other people pay too, of course), because it's more effective that way.
Well pro-national-healthcare advocates are willing to pay for healthcare too. But the ones who are not willing to pay for protection, or the ones who are never ever robbed in the first place, that's the same as you paying up for healthcare even if you don't get sick. (i.e you pay for others)
So why property and not healthcare? It's not like healthcare isn't something essential to someone's life.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 05:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But the ones who are not willing to pay for protection, or the ones who are never ever robbed in the first place, that's the same as you paying up for healthcare even if you don't get sick.
No, not really. If I'm paying for police and they aren't, they're benefiting even though they're not paying. That's why we have the government have everyone pay.
Quote:
So why property and not healthcare?
Protection - public good.
Health care - (mostly) private good.
That's why.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 05:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think there's much dignity and thinking involved in getting sick or being born sick or weak
TD, I'm not talking about a system that helps the existing poor and weak. I'm talking about a system that CREATES poor and weak. And that is the history of the social welfare programs in the US.
To explain:
A person has their housing paid for, has their food paid for, has their health care paid for, and has a lot of other government benefits. Just to make up some numbers let's say that all these things would cost $800 per month if they had to pay for it themselves.
Now they get offered a part time job that pays $500 a month. If they take the job, they lose *ALL* of their previous benefits. What is the motivation for that person, and why would they take that job? Why would they work 100 hours a month to get $300 a month LESS?
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 06:45 AM |
|
|
@Binabik It's fine until you want a television. It's such a great deal I'm assuming you are on welfare. If not why not?
@MVass The conflict comes when what is best for you harms someone (Coworker, employee) or something (environment) else.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 07:15 AM |
|
|
The VAST majority of those people have a television, probably multiple televisions. And also a car. And a computer. And internet. And a cell phone. And beer. And cigarettes. And....
It's such a great deal I'm assuming you are on welfare. If not why not?
I qualify for lots of government benefits. All I'd have to do is fill out some forms. I don't do it because I don't need it. I don't do it because why the hell should someone else pay for me to be a lazy bum and sit on my *** all day?
The way the system is set up in the US, in theory a person could be a billionaire and get welfare benefits form the government because they are classified as living in poverty. (yes, I'm serious)
Before you ask how that can happen, it's income based, not asset based. So in theory a person could be a billionaire (assets), but if they invest in things that don't produce an income stream, they could qualify for benefits. As a matter of fact, some of the instructions to the welfare workers who qualify people specifically say they can not consider assets, only income.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 08:28 AM |
|
|
PR:
Yeah, but such problems can usually relatively easily resolved using property rights and voluntary exchange.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 09:58 AM |
|
Edited by Nebdar at 10:01, 27 Dec 2009.
|
Nobody watched Sicko by Michael Moore  
Cuba has better health care then USA
Better to have "Free" easy acess health care then end up with ilness or disaseas in a bad moment of your economic life when you can't afford to live any longer
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 07:40 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 10:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, not really. If I'm paying for police and they aren't, they're benefiting even though they're not paying. That's why we have the government have everyone pay.
You still don't see it?
Analogy breakup:
Healthy person = Tough guy
Unhealthy person = Grandma (who doesn't know martial arts )
A healthy person doesn't benefit from others paying healthcare. A tough guy does NOT benefit from paying cops (in this case), he can defend himself. When you say that you don't receive much from healthcare compared to what you pay, it's analogous to the tough guy.
Even WORSE if you're a thief (in police analogy) because then you'd be paying AGAINST yourself!
It's not public and private, both are either public or private (depending on the system).
To put this differently, you say you are ENTITLED to your property and thus government should protect it. I say that people are ENTITLED to the same opportunities or same health as others (assuming it's not their fault, of course, like I said before).
@Binabik: I'm talking about healthcare, a sick person (when it's not his/her fault) should absolutely not have to pay up more just because he/she was born that way or just was unlucky. It's like you're asking some certain people to pay up more to have the same rights as others (of course it's not about rights, it's about opportunities). How is that fair/right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A good description of universal health care.
I saw the word 'Soviet' in the title and stopped reading. I'd like to know what a country like the UK teaches us instead.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A tough guy does NOT benefit from paying cops (in this case), he can defend himself.
You're overlooking spillover effects. Suppose a criminal breaks into his house and this tough guy kills him. Who benefits? Obviously the tough guy does (as he just killed someone who aggressed against him). But the rest of society does as well - they become free riders on his "tough guy" abilities. Look at it like this - imagine if bullets were very expensive, and there's a rabid dog loose in your neighbourhood. You know everyone has a gun and bullets, so you don't want to use yours, in the hopes that someone else will shoot the dog. But everyone else is thinking the same thing, so, in an extreme case, no one ends up shooting the dog at all. Now, suppose one guy says, "Okay. All of you guys give me $5, and it'll cover the cost of the bullet. It's cheaper than paying for it yourself." Then he shoots the dog. Thus, even though you could've done it yourself, you benefited nevertheless.
Quote:
Even WORSE if you're a thief (in police analogy) because then you'd be paying AGAINST yourself!
Usually, criminals want the law to be enforced as much as anybody else (except when it comes to them, of course). Not even a murderer would want to live in a society in which everybody murders.
Quote:
To put this differently, you say you are ENTITLED to your property and thus government should protect it. I say that people are ENTITLED to the same opportunities or same health as others (assuming it's not their fault, of course, like I said before).
There's a difference between being entitled to what you have already (and thus just preventing someone from taking it from you) and being entitled to something you don't have.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 03:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The government has robbed them of their humanity, robbed them of their dignity, robbed them of their motivation, robbed them of their ability to think for themselves.
And, um... you're fighting that problem by having them pay more to see a doctor?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 03:08 AM |
|
|
The biggest irony is that sick people are usually less able to work to get that money in the first place
Quote:
There's a difference between being entitled to what you have already (and thus just preventing someone from taking it from you) and being entitled to something you don't have.
But you don't have property without property... I mean the whole point of property is for you to *have* something... without property "having something" makes no sense.
With public healthcare, yeah you also "have" health or access to healthcare. Of course without public healthcare it won't make much sense just like "having" something without property rights being acknowledged.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 07:05 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 07:05, 28 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
And, um... you're fighting that problem by having them pay more to see a doctor?
It wasn't a direct reference to health care. However it was indirect. I was addressing the failed policies of the past that actually created a large class of "poor" people who became dependant on government handouts. Those policies were so bad that even the people who originally made them eventually admitted they were a failure and changed them. (Well, they didn't actually admit they were wrong, they just changed it)
Things in those regards have gotten a LOT better over the last 15-20 years. But what we are seeing now looks all too familiar. What we are seeing looks way too much like a return to those failed policies of the past. We have a general mistrust of the government to run large-scale programs, but especially a mistrust to run these particular types of programs. We see the progress of the last 15-20 years being erased just when it's really starting to gather some momentum.
Most of the non-Americans here seem to take the view that just because Congress passes some sort of health care bill that it's automatically good. Why should it automatically be good?
Our government is definitely not Midas with the golden touch, they have a lead touch. They totally screw up much of what they do, and what they don't screw up outright costs five times as much as it should.
This bill is politics and smoke and mirrors more than anything else. It's a bunch of garbage that was passed just for the sake of passing something. No matter what is in this bill, no matter how good or bad it is, it will be packaged by the government marketing people and presented to the public as a victory for the American people. And enough of the people will believe it that they'll get by with it. I repeat, no matter what is in the bill, it will be presented this way and a large portion of Americans will accept it as a victory. Why? Just because the government said so, and there will be lots of smiling faces and toasts of Champagne and other marketing ploys. And if this thread is any indication, the rest of the world will believe it also......and most likely without having any idea what it's all about.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 07:52 AM |
|
|
Well..time for me to weigh in on this..probably past time. I am not sure what I would classify myself as. I am not a liberal, I am not a conservative. Not exactly middle of the road either..because I probably have more liberal ideas then most 'middle of the road'. Then again..I've never let labels define me...
I believe that a nation should take care of its people. The elderly, the sick, and those who are (due to some medical or mental condition) unable to take care of themselves. We are not animals, people should look out for each other...
However, I also believe that if you can work, and are just too lazy to then you should be left out in the cold with your lazy <Censored>. Heck I got NASH, Diabetes, and a bad back..I'd still rather work then be on some goverment dole.
As a few here have said, the current bill is not a good one, and not really needed..let me explain.
Hospitals are mandated that if you are seriously sick, and can not pay, they have to treat you regardless. The government does reimburse them for that. You get in a accident, get cancer, etc..they can not just turn you out on the street. Even if you can not pay. Even the Flu, they have to treat you if you go into the ER, regardless of your ability to pay. Sure some PRIVATE hospitals can turn people away, but not most.
So..if you are sick..you can get treated. Might have to suffer if you have a cold, or such, however.
Yes it is the 'middle class' that actually has it the roughest. The poor can get Medicaid (If you make under a certain ammount a year..especially if you have children), and the rich can afford to pay. The 'working poor' doesn't qualify for anything, and can't afford to pay. These are not people who live on government handouts, but have a job..and fight to make ends meet every day.
So yeah, I think that there should be some help for the 'working poor'. Maybe because I am one. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Americans have it good. I got access to cable, internet, television, a roof over my head, food..but sometimes I can't even afford to put food on the table..and I work 70+ hrs a week quite often. I also know how to make a penny scream for mercy I can pinch it so tight.
If you work for a living, you shouldn't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from. Or that if you get sick and miss a day of work, your not going to be able to pay all your bills. Sure, you might not have the giant house on the hill, or a mercades in the driveway, but you should not have to face the choice of "Do I pay this bill, or do I eat this week?"
"If I call off work, because I have the flu and don't want to give it to somebody, will my car be repossessed? Can I afford to miss what money I will make AND pay the hospital bill?"
These are questions that you should not have to ask yourself.
Yeah, I know a lot of people have it a lot worse, which is why I try not to complain. Something does need to be done about the current system..just don't ask me what. The only thing I do know is..it is not the bill they are trying to pass.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted December 28, 2009 08:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A good description of universal health care.
Also, Michael Moore is wrong.
And i am a vitness of bad transiton from public health care to private health care. Dear Mvasss if you put all public free health in to one Soviet Union Project bag then... we have nothing to talk about..
And there is a goood point that that there is no free health care because we all pay appropirate taxes, but we have all time full and equall health insurance
in battle of private and public health care the most important is organisation and motivation of people. If in private sector there is a good organisation of work in private med clinic but very bad motivation to do a quality job the patcients will not be satisfied with the services they provide, and the quality will be equall to that "socviet Union" a houndred years after USA and this works of course in other ways around
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
