debate on universal access to health care

TPA said:
I know that both republicans and democrats are to blame for the escalation of government power, and the the more government power we get the less Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity we get.

Why can't we get together and make an honest decision on what was intended based on the writings and attitudes of the founders rather than spin the individual words of the constitution to fit our agenda.
Click to expand...

Spinning the individual words of the Constitution? Who was doing that?

How much Liberty and Posterity does the sick person without health care have? Is Canada, and every other Western industrialized nation, lacking the blessings of Liberty and Posterity? Why or why not? Do you think their citizens feel oppressed and enslaved?

I just don't understand where you're coming from.
 
As these programs continue to be implemented, there will be an ever increasing need to get the money from the wealthy. Eventually, you are no longer free to become wealthy.

I do not view the lack of another persons resources as a lack of freedom (I am not wealthy....yet).

Louisiana declined some years back to increase the legal drinking age to 21 from 18. The federal government insisted, but could not make them do it. The gov solution was to strip LA of all fed. highway funds. LA resisted for a while and its highways suffered as a result, eventually it needed its fix and got back on the fed funds crack, and returned to gov slavery.

To me, handing out public funds can be a form of slavery if the population does not have the discipline to resist it.

I've never been rich, but I would rather have the opportunity to be rich than to have taxation that eliminates the upper class and have no opportunity to get there at all.
 
TPA said:
To me, handing out public funds can be a form of slavery if the population does not have the discipline to resist it.

I've never been rich, but I would rather have the opportunity to be rich than to have taxation that eliminates the upper class and have no opportunity to get there at all.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. So, you know, there are rich people in other Western industrialized nations besides the US... Once again: Is Canada, and every other Western industrialized nation, lacking the blessings of Liberty and Posterity? Do you think their citizens feel oppressed and enslaved?

I still don't understand where you're coming from.
 
I will give you that it could be a matter of perception.

I wanted to buy a new laptop. I decided on the Thinkpad t60 (now lenovo). While in the decision making process, I was discussing features etc... on another forum. A guy there who lived in France wanted the same thing only he was going to have to pay almost twice the price (big gov has an incessant need for multiple taxations).

He was a school teacher and said he made 800 euros a month (when the euro and dollar were at parity).

My wife is a school teacher and makes almost 4 times that here in the US, and she has free health insurance.

He said he is perfectly happy, since most of his services are provided by the government.

My point earlier was, what happens when the gov wants something for those services. What if you do not want to do what the gov wants you to do. Suddenly you either lose services or liberty. If you do not mind doing the gov bidding then you perceive all is well.

matter of perception.

In the US, you will not get a large percentage of happy people if the gov forces its will. Harder to do that here. So a lot of people will lose liberty regardless of what they believe.

gov forces liberal will.....conservatives unhappy and vice versa.

Clearer?

In the US people have grown up believing they have absolute freedom (despite reality). If they believe in imposing their will on another, they do not perceive it as depriving liberty until the same is done to them, at which time it might become clear that other people might not agree to the change...even if it is for their own good. Those who persist in imposing their will are fascist.
 
I just don't see how you're drawing the line between what you consider acceptable government services (Medicare, K-12 education, interstate maintenance...) and "fascist" healthcare reform... use of that word in this context is kinda ridiculous, by the way.
 
perhaps I didn't word things well before. The Federal gov should not provide any of those things. Any state gov should be able to provide services of any kind, if it wants, just like any other country can if it wants. I do not believe the US was arranged in such a way that the Federal gov provides services. But, like I said, this issue was never fully resolved. The civil war pretty much did away with states rights because slavery was such an important issue to resolve. If slavery never happened, I think states rights would still be in place (I wonder how much potential there is to abuse that system, oh well, I suppose you can abuse any system. A system built for people of integrity requires a people of integrity).


If a state initiates policies that are not to your liking, you can escape them by moving to another state (It's more difficult to move to another country). Likewise, if a state is initiating policies you do like, you are free to move there and enjoy them. Liberty for everybody (and hopefully harmony)!

Free healthcare for all in CA, and total self reliance in TX for example (I don't think there is a state that practices total self reliance though). The problem is that many times all those programs are unsustainable, and the folks in CA want other states forced to contribute to their programs in order to keep them in place, like what is happening now (CA was reluctant to defund a program for otters even though their financial situation is dire and they keep begging for federal aid).

use of that word in this context is kinda ridiculous, by the way.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct, typing faster than thinking... :oops:
 
The problems in CA are not caused by their social programs, they are caused by a broken state constitution. For example, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a budget is pretty stupid.

I like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They're far from perfect, but millions of people would be a LOT worse off if these programs didn't exist. If these things weren't federalized they would be a lot less efficient. If I remember right, Medicare has 4% overhead -- try to find a private insurance company which takes so little of the money people put into it.

We spend more than 16% of our GDP on healthcare. I think the next highest is Canada at something like 10% of their GDP. The rest of the 'top 40' western industrialized nations (just about all of which provides healthcare coverage for every citizen -- hmm, why is that) spend even less. We don't even get better health results than any of these countries for all those extra billion$ we spend. Now that's unsustainable.

You're entitled to your opinion. All I have to say is this: if every western industrialized nation but the US has an unsustainable government, you must have a very dark opinion of the world's future.
 
julesa said:
The problems in CA are not caused by their social programs, they are caused by a broken state constitution. For example, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a budget is pretty stupid.

I like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They're far from perfect, but millions of people would be a LOT worse off if these programs didn't exist. If these things weren't federalized they would be a lot less efficient. If I remember right, Medicare has 4% overhead -- try to find a private insurance company which takes so little of the money people put into it.

We spend more than 16% of our GDP on healthcare. I think the next highest is Canada at something like 10% of their GDP. The rest of the 'top 40' western industrialized nations (just about all of which provides healthcare coverage for every citizen -- hmm, why is that) spend even less. We don't even get better health results than any of these countries for all those extra billion$ we spend. Now that's unsustainable.

You're entitled to your opinion. All I have to say is this: if every western industrialized nation but the US has an unsustainable government, you must have a very dark opinion of the world's future.
Click to expand...

The problem in California is they spend more then they take in. Even requiring a 2/3 majority they still managed to pass a budget that increased by 40% in a four year time frame, out pacing inflation and growth in population.

And social programs have been a problem, having 20% of the people getting assistance is just crazy.

Deron.
 
julesa said:
The problems in CA are not caused by their social programs, they are caused by a broken state constitution. For example, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a budget is pretty stupid.

I like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They're far from perfect, but millions of people would be a LOT worse off if these programs didn't exist. If these things weren't federalized they would be a lot less efficient. If I remember right, Medicare has 4% overhead -- try to find a private insurance company which takes so little of the money people put into it.

We spend more than 16% of our GDP on healthcare. I think the next highest is Canada at something like 10% of their GDP. The rest of the 'top 40' western industrialized nations (just about all of which provides healthcare coverage for every citizen -- hmm, why is that) spend even less. We don't even get better health results than any of these countries for all those extra billion$ we spend. Now that's unsustainable.

You're entitled to your opinion. All I have to say is this: if every western industrialized nation but the US has an unsustainable government, you must have a very dark opinion of the world's future.
Click to expand...

Sure the US spends more on health care.

But if you want a Yugo you go to Canada, you want a Porsche you come to the US. Anyways Canada's health care system has it's own problems, the people in charge even admitted that drastic changes had to be made as the system could not survive in it's present form.

Deron.
 
here is a serious flaw in 1 person 1 vote, our basic system of government.
the guys paying $$$$$$$$ in taxes have 1 vote
and the guys paying nothing have 1 vote.
So, by the sheer numbers of average to no income people, they can always vote to take money away from the few high payers. something like 10% pay 50% of the taxes.
So, yes, we are all doomed once this ponzi scheme unravels. .
An interesting system to test on an island somewhere
EACH $ PAID IN TAXES HAS 1 vote.
i HAVE no idea how that would work out, but it seems fair.
 
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson
 
s/FDR/Obama/g
s/Hearst/Fox/g
emphasis added

"On September 6, Hearst newspapers began a prolonged assault on the administration. The New York American published a front-page editorial titled, 'The Radical Brand on the New Deal.' It charged that radical and communist leaders had already given their approval to support Roosevelt against Landon. During the next two weeks Hearst editors trumpeted these recurring themes: that communists had infiltrated the New Deal; that communism was un-American and undemocratic; that 'America can only judge Mr. Roosevelt and his administration by the strange silence that has prevailed in official quarters.'"

That was as much as Roosevelt was willing to take. The White House issued a statement that mentioned "a certain notorious newspaper owner," and rebutted the accusations. The statement concluded, "The American people will not permit their attention to be diverted from real issues to fake issues which no patriotic, honorable, decent citizen would purposefully inject into American affairs."

Hearst shot back in a front-page editorial, which he signed personally. "Let me say that I have not stated at any time whether the President willingly or unwillingly received the support of the Karl Marx Socialists, the Frankfurter radicals, communists and anarchists, the Tugwell bolsheviks, and the Richberg revolutionists which constitute the bulk of his following," Hearst wrote. "I have simply said and shown that he does receive the support of these enemies of the American system of government, and that he has done his best to deserve the support of all such disturbing and destructive elements."

Hearst's efforts were for naught. Roosevelt won the 1936 election in a landslide victory, while the Hearst newspaper chain slid into bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
 
Still mum on the article full of facts pertinent to the subject of the thread, huh, julesa?
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”

Its true that if we copied "every other Western industrialized nation" our costs would come in line with theirs, but that doesn't mean its a good idea. They have decided they want a socialist health care system and they run it that way without ambiguity. We started out with a "somewhat free market" system and then proceeded to let special interests modify it into a very inefficient convolution of government control, regulation, and poor results.

Instead of copying what "every other Western industrialized nation" has, we should do better. It worked when we wrote our government charter, and it can work at this moment of choosing what kind of health care system is best.

The health care situation is a good example of what the direction and policies of FDR have brought us. Instead of enjoying actual freedom and being the beacon of it to the rest of the world, we are mired in government favoritism that mainly benefits the parasites of society. And let's not forget the monumental blow to freedom FDR caused when he gave away half the Western world to Stalin at Yalta. FDR is the last champion of principled policy that one should want to cite as example in this debate.
 
Depends on what your definition of conservative is. I'm a "radical for capitalism". Most of the "conservatives" in Washington are sellouts to my cause. Plus, I have no religiously motivated agenda.

This might be a good time to point out the difference between types of capitalism. The type I promote is full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The type that gets rightfully attacked, but is then confused with the above, is government favoritism capitalism. It is characterized by necessary violation of individual rights by special interests' economic control of the government.

[EDIT] I notice that you too, Cackalacka, have no thoughtful critism to the article I posted a link to.
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”
 
gogo said:
Still mum on the article full of facts pertinent to the subject of the thread, huh, julesa?
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was insightful enough to bother responding to. Maybe you should put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged and read a little history. Without government regulation, or with insufficient government regulation, liberty is taken by whoever has the most power. Enron. Lehman brothers. Insurance companies would be screwing people left and right without government "interference."
 
julesa said:
What a load of crap.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who has been thoroghly rebutted.

julesa said:
Without government regulation, or with insufficient government regulation, liberty is taken by whoever has the most power. Enron. Lehman brothers. Insurance companies would be screwing people left and right if we let them.
Click to expand...
Please see my post above that differentiates the two types of capitalism. I'm in favor of the government preventing the favoritism that led to Enron et al. The problem is that we currently have the latter, a government that instead of protecting our individual rights, is complicit in violating them. It isn't laissez-faire capitalism that allows the screwing of people left and right (violating individual rights).

The "regulation" that you promote is exactly how special interests get their ability to screw people. The regulation that we need from the government is law based only on the protection of individual rights.
 
If we can't agree that Medicare and Social Security have been good things for America, then I doubt we're going to agree on anything in regard to new proposals for health care reform. And I'm particularly uninterested in the morality of justifying selfishness that is Objectivism. 'Bye.
 
Thoughtful criticism? That would imply that this bowl of tripe had thought worth commenting on.

Seriously, I got to this part:

Contrary to claims that government-imposed “universal health care” would solve America’s health care problems, it would in fact destroy American medicine and countless lives along with it. The goal of “universal health care” (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical; it violates the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgment—which, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question. To show this, we will first examine the nature and history of government involvement in health insurance and medicine. Then we will consider attempts in other countries and various U.S. states to solve these problems through further government programs. Finally, we will show that the only viable long-term solution to the problems in question is to convert to a fully free market in health care and health insurance.
Click to expand...

and my eyes couldn't stop rolling. Sorry. You can keep this red wagon.

Look, I like Drew Carrey as much as the next dude. Hell, I've met libertarian governor candidates from several states (one of whom was an interesting fellow who built a bomb-shelter/mansion complete with MREs and survival gear. Think Black Helicopters.) Additionally, I understand, due to recent man-made catastrophes, folks are climbing over walls to distance themselves from movement conservatism & Republicanism. I would imagine that if a liberal with the same level of depravity were to send our nation sliding ala 2001-2009, I'd want to distance myself as well.

There are quite a few parallels listening to the Austrian School rail about the tyranny of socialism and listening to a Nader complain about Al Gore; too pure by half. The beautiful thing about being an Objectivist, you don't have to put your money where your mouth is; you can't be wrong. One doesn't have to solve any real-world problems, all one need do is bitch.

That said, I prefer the historicaly accurate term for "libertarianism": feudalism.

Keep complaining about FDR, dude only saved our country, salvaged its economy after the aristocracy took a huge dump on it, and defeated conservative totalitarianism. I can see why Straussians loath FDR and his legacy; his is a real-world example that the invisible hand is a fraud.
 
julesa said:
If we can't agree that Medicare and Social Security have been good things for America,
Click to expand...

It was certainly good for Ida May Fuller (the first recipient), who received $22,888.92 over the course of her lifetime while only contributing $24.75 to the system.

She won the modern day equivalent of the lottery.

FDR sold out the future that we are unable to pay for.
 
Tom Tom said:
FDR sold out the future that we are unable to pay for.
Click to expand...

And yet here we are, almost seventy-five years later, fantastically wealthier as a nation every decade since then... somehow the whole system hasn't come crashing down yet. All you Chicken Littles must find that miraculous.

As for selling out the future, we almost had the national debt paid off until Reagan came along, and then the Bushes. But our national debt is still manageable. I'd like it to be lower than it is, but it's not out of control.
 
Cackalacka said:
Keep complaining about FDR, dude only saved our country, salvaged its economy after the aristocracy took a huge dump on it, and defeated conservative totalitarianism. I can see why Straussians loath FDR and his legacy; his is a real-world example that the invisible hand is a fraud.
Click to expand...

An equally compelling argument can be made that he prolonged the suffering

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357
 
LOL the Cato institute? "A proud tradition of providing neo-con sock-puppets since 1977"

You guys might find this enlightening. A very smart examination of Objectivism, why he doesn't believe it's necessarily irrational, and why he doesn't subscribe to it anymore:

Why I am a former Objectivist and former Libertarian, by John Hodges
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/hodges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top