Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

The problem with socialized healthcare is that you may find yourself deceptively denied it or even endangered by it when hospitals try to kill you off prematurely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20503932
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7678843.stm

Of course I'm sure there's equal problems with private services where doctors might string you along with treatment and tests that aren't needed to boost their bills.

FreedomofInformation:
The problem with socialized healthcare is that you may find yourself deceptively denied it or even endangered by it when hospitals try to kill you off prematurely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20503932
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7678843.stm

Uhm, your links are about cessation of medical treatment (palliative care they call it) not being properly explained to the family, and concerns about a bonus for GPs for not unnecessarily reffering people to a hospital.

You're talking about killing people...? I see no connection between your post and those links.

Generally if sick people don't get proper treatment or diagnosis they're denied and endangered too, please read the whole post.
The BBC article on the LCP was a bit vague but I'm sure you could have googled it if you were confused but here's some articles which might clear things up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html

Privitized health-care is a lot like the "survival of the fittest" principle. Sure, not everyone is going to get the absolute best care or sometimes any care, but those that do can at least say they get what they pay for. Socialized health care doesn't even give you the chance to really do that. You've kinda got to take what you're given if you can't afford to go private, and that often is pretty terrible. It'd probably be run on a state-level, and I don't want to be in a state like Alabama, New York, or California if I can only get Social Health Care.

I'm sure most doctors are having a hard enough time as is dealing with costs on medicines, supplies, and taking coverage from select insurance companies. I can't even imagine how tough it'd be once socialized health because a thing people want to latch onto for convenience's sake.

It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

I don't really understand that example. It's like... if you don't want to murder people, is it right to have a cop there if you do?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone is a millionaire who just doesn't want to be insured, many of those people are minimum wage workers who can't afford the high monthly rates of private insurers or want to get insured but are denied because of pre-existing conditions. Is it a choice for those not able to get insurance?
People in a society also have limitations and responsibilities towards each other. I don't see you complaining that the police is limiting someone else's choice of selling your kidney on the black market and I'm sure if you lay insured next to the road you'd like help as well.

People deserve to die if they can't pay to be healthy. The poor who create a burden on society by being sick while unemployed or worse, taking government funds to get well should be allowed to pass because it creates a surplus for society overall if the weak die or are allowed die. It allows the strong and healthy to float to the top. It's the same reason why Medicare should be removed. The Elderly are weak and do not add to society after they are retired so they should also be allowed to pass away without draining society by being provided aid. The bottom line is, I don't want a moral society, I want a society that will be successful. The poor and weak should be allowed to breed quickly and plentifully so that they can work to produce a few who are strong and wealthy who will succeed while others die and are crushed beneath them in their rise to the top. Ideally we will have a society of wealthy upper-class individuals built upon the skulls and bones of workers with neither the means nor the drive to leave their low class standing, they'll die quickly, marry quickly and keep the cycle going. Education needs to be privatized to make this happen. If the poorest are unable to afford education they can be easily manipulated by Religion and Politicians to fight against anyone who would want to improve their current condition.

Well, that's my logical conservative argument. Can you tell I've been suckling off the teet of Ayn Rand my entire life? The truth is, though, a society is immoral when they are able to, but still avoid the means to help those that are unable to help themselves to a point where they literally die of sickness or starvation. Talking about the cost and how well it works is just nit-picking. Having and not having a system for picking up your sickest and hungriest is the difference between a moral and morally bankrupt society. If you are alright with people dieing for lack of care because it doesn't effect you then you are a narcissistic sociopath; if you think that isn't the same as saying you are not in favor of universal health-care then you are in denial.

Kopikatsu:
Giving it to people who they know they're going to have to pay to take care of kind of defeats the purpose of the business.

Absolutely true. Which is why there absolutely needs to be a public option, socialized care, or regulations to take the choice away from the insurance companies.

Quaxar:

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

I don't really understand that example. It's like... if you don't want to murder people, is it right to have a cop there if you do?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone is a millionaire who just doesn't want to be insured, many of those people are minimum wage workers who can't afford the high monthly rates of private insurers or want to get insured but are denied because of pre-existing conditions. Is it a choice for those not able to get insurance?
People in a society also have limitations and responsibilities towards each other. I don't see you complaining that the police is limiting someone else's choice of selling your kidney on the black market and I'm sure if you lay insured next to the road you'd like help as well.

He's referring to taxes. For socialized healthcare, taxes will be raised to be able to afford offering insurance for people who can't afford it, because money doesn't just spawn from the aether. Which he's saying is essentially forcing people to pay out to charity. The police officer (The Government) is forcing you to give money to the homeless (the poor), otherwise they arrest you and you go to jail. It's an apt analogy.

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

People can't fully take care of themselves due to monopolistic and restrictive laws that force them into overpriced private healthcare.
There's also an argument for economies of scale.

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

Oh look a hyperbole! While socialism may dictate what you do with every penny Social Liberalism (which also favors socialized healthcare) doesn't. You see, the basic ideology is to make those who have a lot to help those who have little to provide for basic needs (with certain restrictions).

And the reason why social liberalism does this is because it's not always a matter of choice. Some people simply CANNOT afford healthcare and not just because they are lazy (not everyone can have good jobs). And since healthcare is considered a basic need it is deemed imperative that society ensures everyone can afford it.

And the problem is also that a lot of people are extremely shortsighted. When they donate they only think of the direct impact it has. Take healthcare for instance, they think it will just help the person's live they give healthcare to (by donating) meanwhile if you look at the big picture the less people have access to healthcare the higher the odds contagious diseases spread due to people not being treated. And this might bite your ass in one way or an other.

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

OK, go get a minimum wage job, your own house and raise 2 kids alone. Lets see you afford health insurance then. When your choice is healthcare or food that is no choice. Not everyone is free to choose.

And your example is flawed; nobody forces you to pay tax, its your choice to have a job that pays enough to get taxed. Sword cuts both ways. But seriously if you choose to use anything government funded or subsidized (i.e. near everything) then you should be paying tax, you don't get to decide what does and doesn't deserve your tax money.

When a person has no health insurance because they have no choice then you pick up a bill that's twice as large as if you'd had universal health coverage in the first place (just look at what the US spends on healthcare compared to countries like the UK). America already has a socialised healthcare system and it's set up in the worst possible fashion, having the government set up a proper system would only improve things.

There's no reason that America can't have both a fully working universal healthcare system and insurance for those that want it (almost every country with universal coverage does) but only having insurance screws over a large proportion of the population, increases the overall cost of healthcare and keeps people in poverty, that's something that just should not be happening in one of the world's most prosperous countries.

FreedomofInformation:
Generally if sick people don't get proper treatment or diagnosis they're denied and endangered too, please read the whole post.
The BBC article on the LCP was a bit vague but I'm sure you could have googled it if you were confused but here's some articles which might clear things up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html

I understand what they're trying to do perfectly, I just see no relation to your rather outlandish claim that hospitals are trying to kill people.

They're two medical axiums conflicted. On one hand you have the idea of 'do everything that's possible'. On the other hand you have the idea of what they call 'quality of living'. Basically it weighs the span of your life against the quality. If you stand to gain very little in terms of span, but lose a lot in quality, it may not be worth it.

Programs like that aim to replace the old axiom of doing everything possible regardless of if the patient would benefit from it. And that's a good thing if you ask me, not something you should criticise in the way you did.


The sort of stuff you're talking about is when a fragile 87 year old gets cancer, you don't get into a treatment plan and radiate him to death if it adds 2 months to their lifespan, which he'd have to spend spend in utter misery because of the devastating side effects of chemotherapy on someone that old.

Prostate cancer is a good example. Most men (90% in the end) get it at an advanced age, but the disease is so slow that the vast majority of people die from other causes before the prostate cancer develops to a harmfull level. So prostate cancer is not treated whenever present, but when the prostate cancer looks like it could become your cause of death.

Another example is severely handicapped babies. An example I lifted from a medical magazine (AMC magazine) a few years back involved the example of babies born with severe hydrocephalia and an open spine. The hydrocephalia has suppressed the brain, so conciousness is absent or only at a very low level. These children need emergency surgery as soon as they're born, and it takes 42 surgeries to extend their lifespan to two years at most, and during which they will never exceed the mental capacity of a baby of two months old. They're so fragile you can't even administer enough painkillers. Basically, without exagerating, they're condemned to a short of life of only pain.
Nowadays, about 95% of those cases get an abortion because not many parents want their child to live a life of only pain. For the remaining 5%, it's often the choice to sedate as much as possible, not perform surgery, and let the child die. After all, if you choose to perform surgery, no health gain would be achieved. It's both more humane and a lot cheaper.


But because doctors often cling to the old axiom (they don't pay the medical bills after all, so that makes sense) you can stimulate hospitals to change their policies using a program like the one you linked.

It's not "paying for killing people". It's subsidising an organisation to upgrade their policies to something better, which they probably wouldn't do by themselves.

Karma168:

AgedGrunt:
It's quite simple, really, why any form of socialism should be treated as toxic. Should not exceed a certain amount.

Private systems are about private responsibility; the burden is on the individual or family/company to look after itself.

Public systems are collective responsibility; the burden is on each individual to be responsible for the collective.

If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

And OP, if you are having a hard time with the word choice, maybe it is not for your liberal mind, as you say. People who are free have choices. They have the choice to live where they want. A choice to own a home, a choice to own a car, a choice to own a firearm, a choice to join a union-- and a choice to have health insurance.

You have a choice whether or not to take care of yourself, with the responsibility owed solely to you. Do what you want to do, but your choices? They are not everyone's responsibility. It should be my choice whether or not to help you, and that's what charity is all about.

OK, go get a minimum wage job, your own house and raise 2 kids alone. Lets see you afford health insurance then. When your choice is healthcare or food that is no choice. Not everyone is free to choose.

And your example is flawed; nobody forces you to pay tax, its your choice to have a job that pays enough to get taxed. Sword cuts both ways. But seriously if you choose to use anything government funded or subsidized (i.e. near everything) then you should be paying tax, you don't get to decide what does and doesn't deserve your tax money.

When a person has no health insurance because they have no choice then you pick up a bill that's twice as large as if you'd had universal health coverage in the first place (just look at what the US spends on healthcare compared to countries like the UK). America already has a socialised healthcare system and it's set up in the worst possible fashion, having the government set up a proper system would only improve things.

There's no reason that America can't have both a fully working universal healthcare system and insurance for those that want it (almost every country with universal coverage does) but only having insurance screws over a large proportion of the population, increases the overall cost of healthcare and keeps people in poverty, that's something that just should not be happening in one of the world's most prosperous countries.

Your idea is based upon the assumption that the government will set up a proper system, when nearly no system the government currently runs can be identified as "proper". and honestly, the government is getting WORSE at its current responsibilities. Education system? in a nose dive. Law enforcement? getting worse. Utilities? also getting worse.

I dont blame the worker bees in these systems, it is usually the people at the top mucking everything up or handicapping the people who are trying to get things done. Worse what is common at the top levels is for people to institute change for the sake of change, not to make things better. They do this is validate themselves and their jobs.

Is it possible for the US government to pull through on socialized medicine? yes....but considering their track record I would give them very poor odds.

Honestly, if the government could do the jobs that they currently have somewhat adequately, we wouldnt have HALF the problems our country is currently facing.

Ryotknife:

Your idea is based upon the assumption that the government will set up a proper system, when nearly no system the government currently runs can be identified as "proper". and honestly, the government is getting WORSE at its current responsibilities. Education system? in a nose dive. Law enforcement? getting worse. Utilities? also getting worse.

I dont blame the worker bees in these systems, it is usually the people at the top mucking everything up or handicapping the people who are trying to get things done. Worse what is common at the top levels is for people to institute change for the sake of change, not to make things better. They do this is validate themselves and their jobs.

Is it possible for the US government to pull through on socialized medicine? yes....but considering their track record I would give them very poor odds.

Honestly, if the government could do the jobs that they currently have somewhat adequately, we wouldnt have HALF the problems our country is currently facing.

True the American government needs a serious kick up the backside when it comes to government programs but as long as half the government is determined to see government programs undercut to the point of failure just to prove an ideological point it'll never happen.

My point is the US needs to give their government that kick, you can't have half the population believing that anything government run is inherently bad (just look at the anti-Obamacare protests). There are dozens of countries with better medical systems and the sooner people realise that and stop believing all the 'death panel' propaganda the better.

If America could get past the McCarthy-era fear of anything further left than Illinois then it would be possible to implement a working socialised system that would help make America live up to it's dream. Unfortunately you're right, right now it's a pipe dream.

Quaxar:
I don't really understand that example. It's like... if you don't want to murder people, is it right to have a cop there if you do?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone is a millionaire who just doesn't want to be insured, many of those people are minimum wage workers who can't afford the high monthly rates of private insurers or want to get insured but are denied because of pre-existing conditions. Is it a choice for those not able to get insurance?

People in a society also have limitations and responsibilities towards each other. I don't see you complaining that the police is limiting someone else's choice of selling your kidney on the black market and I'm sure if you lay insured next to the road you'd like help as well.

How did we go from charitable donation to willful urges to murder people? This is an argument for socialism?

Insurance companies provide a service, they are not health care providers. More essentially, if you don't have the money you cannot afford to buy a home or go to university, either (housing market crash, skyrocketing education costs/debt from subsidizing everyone to have these do not suggest they were practical ideas).

I'm having difficulty seeing the logic of murder and organ thieves when compared to what is essentially a system forcing everyone to pay under the condition they breathe.

FreedomofInformation:
People can't fully take care of themselves due to monopolistic and restrictive laws that force them into overpriced private healthcare.
There's also an argument for economies of scale.

So the answer is not to go after corruption, money pits, regulations and existing law, but to replace it with a government-run monopoly with loads of bureaucracy, restrictions and force people into that healthcare system without an alternative, under the threat of penalty?

generals3:
...the basic ideology is to make those who have a lot to help those who have little to provide for basic needs (with certain restrictions).

...it's not always a matter of choice. Some people simply CANNOT afford healthcare and not just because they are lazy (not everyone can have good jobs). And since healthcare is considered a basic need it is deemed imperative that society ensures everyone can afford it.

One's inability to afford something should not necessitate that society provides it (that's necessitate, not forbid). Society has set up many social programs. Economic prosperity is ideal but these are acceptable to an extent.

On the other hand, socialism is a lifetime subscription to welfare that says humanity has given up trying to improve people and demands we use each other without consent for our own purposes. In any other context that is a form of assault.

Karma168:
OK, go get a minimum wage job, your own house and raise 2 kids alone. Lets see you afford health insurance then....
...nobody forces you to pay tax, its your choice to have a job that pays enough to get taxed
...if you choose to use anything government funded or subsidized (i.e. near everything) then you should be paying tax

The insurance mandate in Obamacare is forced. How would vegetarians like to pay a meat tax? They're not consuming or supporting the industry, yet would have to pay for it. Seem fair to you?

Make an opt-in public system; don't force participation. You go to a provider with public/private insurance or pay out of pocket. Choice. The ironic reality? In order for a public system to work they have to revoke choice.

Most people aren't anti-government, by the way, their just sick of being demagogued, controlled, bamboozled and without representation.

AgedGrunt:

On the other hand, socialism is a lifetime subscription to welfare that says humanity has given up trying to improve people and demands we use each other without consent for our own purposes. In any other context that is a form of assault.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to invoke Inigo Montoya here. That's not what socialism is.

Karma168:

Most people aren't anti-government, by the way, their just sick of being demagogued, controlled, bamboozled and without representation.

That's fancy for "just anti-government-I-disagree-with" if my experience with human beings has anything to say on the matters...

AgedGrunt:

Quaxar:
I don't really understand that example. It's like... if you don't want to murder people, is it right to have a cop there if you do?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone is a millionaire who just doesn't want to be insured, many of those people are minimum wage workers who can't afford the high monthly rates of private insurers or want to get insured but are denied because of pre-existing conditions. Is it a choice for those not able to get insurance?

People in a society also have limitations and responsibilities towards each other. I don't see you complaining that the police is limiting someone else's choice of selling your kidney on the black market and I'm sure if you lay insured next to the road you'd like help as well.

How did we go from charitable donation to willful urges to murder people? This is an argument for socialism?

Insurance companies provide a service, they are not health care providers. More essentially, if you don't have the money you cannot afford to buy a home or go to university, either (housing market crash, skyrocketing education costs/debt from subsidizing everyone to have these do not suggest they were practical ideas).

I'm having difficulty seeing the logic of murder and organ thieves when compared to what is essentially a system forcing everyone to pay under the condition they breathe.

Justice is balance. You confused me with your example and left me unimpressed. Consider us even.

I gotta say I seem to not understand your middle paragraph. If you can't afford a good home and the educational means to acquire more funding through a better career surely you are only more in need of an insurance since your living conditions are poorer in a shitty badly insulated flat with minimum wage hard physical labour.
Are you saying all the people growing up in a poor environment in a bad neighbourhood had tough luck? Also, all the people with inherent medical conditions that private insurers simply won't take because there is no obligation to and the profit margins on these people are too bad?

You also realize that with the current system of free treatment for life-threatening conditions a lot of people that can't afford or won't take out a loan for normal treatments simply have to wait until it's really bad to get treatment, which is most of the time far more expensive than pre-emptive therapies and an even bigger and longer burden on taxpayer money?
Although maybe you are of the opinion that life-threatening conditions shouldn't receive tax money either? After all, that's socialistic as well.

AgedGrunt:

The insurance mandate in Obamacare is forced. How would vegetarians like to pay a meat tax? They're not consuming or supporting the industry, yet would have to pay for it. Seem fair to you?

Make an opt-in public system; don't force participation. You go to a provider with public/private insurance or pay out of pocket. Choice. The ironic reality? In order for a public system to work they have to revoke choice.

If the government subsidises farms that produce meat then they already pay for it.

I don't:

drive but taxes pay for motorways
agree with the nuclear deterrent but taxes pay for that
think the government should be paid 6 figures but taxes pay their salary
get sick but taxes pay for the NHS
claim benefits but taxes pay for welfare
have kids but governments pay for schools.

You are always paying for stuff you don't need/want/agree with that's the very nature of taxes. If we let people decide what they want their taxes spent on there'd be no point in taking them because people would just want the money spent on them.

That's the whole point of government; they take the taxes and (in theory) spend them where they are most useful. You might not agree with the idea universal healthcare but that's the best way of spending money on healthcare.

And no it should not be an opt out system because then what's the point? If everyone with money to pay for private can say "I won't pay taxes towards public healthcare" then who the fuck is going to pay for it? If you can opt out then how is it any different from how things are now?

If you want to go private then that should be your choice with actual consequences, same reason I think tax exempting charity is ridiculous, if you want to do something it should be because you really think it's the right thing to do, not because it gives you a financial boost. I can go private in the UK if I want to, still have to pay for the NHS.

Most people aren't anti-government, by the way, their just sick of being demagogued, controlled, bamboozled and without representation.

You're not being represented? Funny I remember this big event about 2 months ago; went on for months, cost about $6Bn and split the country down the middle. You just had a fucking election, stop bitching about being unrepresented because your side lost. Either your side didn't care enough to vote or, shockingly, the majority don't agree with you; that's how a democracy works! You wouldn't be bitching about the 'pro-government' people being unrepresented if the republicans had won and tore down every government program.

Karma168:

That's the whole point of government; they take the taxes and (in theory) spend them where they are most useful. You might not agree with the idea universal healthcare but that's the best way of spending money on healthcare.

Except, in America anyway, it is absolutely not spent usefully. Any list that has ever looked into wasteful government spending has shocked and galled anyone who was willing to listen. Pork barrel spending, pet projects, failed investments, bailout after bailout, ever-ever-ever-increasing entitlements, hand-outs to unfriendly nations like Pakistan, just to name a few.

The point of government is not to be separate from the people, playing them like chess pawns, knowing what's best for them. I know that's how it works in Europe, but not here.

You're not being represented? Funny I remember this big event about 2 months ago; went on for months, cost about $6Bn and split the country down the middle. You just had a fucking election, stop bitching about being unrepresented because your side lost. Either your side didn't care enough to vote or, shockingly, the majority don't agree with you; that's how a democracy works! You wouldn't be bitching about the 'pro-government' people being unrepresented if the republicans had won and tore down every government program.

This attitude is juvenile and dangerous. Just because we have a Democrat president doesn't mean the SLIM majority has free reign to oppress the rest of us. A Democracy "works" when there is universal representation, and protection for the minority. (No, not racial minority, political minority, which has often been Democrats.)

harmonic:

This attitude is juvenile and dangerous. Just because we have a Democrat president doesn't mean the SLIM majority has free reign to oppress the rest of us. A Democracy "works" when there is universal representation, and protection for the minority. (No, not racial minority, political minority, which has often been Democrats.)

Yes I agree that would be the ideal way for government to work, campaign for it and I'd back you all the way.

But until then you can't bitch about being hard done by because you lost. When we take part in an election we agree to abide by the results, we can't complain that it's unfair when we don't get the result we hoped for and say nothing when we do, you'll sound like a petty child that doesn't like losing a game. If you think the system is broken it always has to be broken, just not when the winds aren't in your favour.

I didn't get the result I wanted in the last election (UK) but do I complain that it's unfair and I'm being oppressed? No, I accept that my 'side' lost this round and policy may made that I don't like.

Note; me saying you can't say it's 'unfair' when you lose doesn't mean you can't disagree with policy - complain all you want but don't bitch about the game being unfair.

If AgedGrunt is constantly campaigning to see fairness in elections, even when it hurts his ideological side, fair do's I'll retract what I said. If however (and this is more likely) he's just pissed because things aren't going the way he'd like and he's using the 'we're being ignored' argument to sound like he's being oppressed when he'd have no problem with it if things were the other way round then what I said sticks.

AgedGrunt:
If you want an illustration of why socialism is flawed, imagine a police officer standing next to a group of homeless people. You want to donate, you have some spare coins and out of the goodness of your heart, you think about donating. But is it right to have the cop there to arrest you if you don't?

Unfortunately I live under a capitalist system so the only way I can imagine a police officer and homeless people in each other's vicinity is if the cop is either threatening or beating them.

@harmonic Thing is, the exact same attitude reigned when Democrats were the slim minority. Remember W. Bush? A lot of people didn't like him much, but hell if it wasn't considered un-American or outright traitorous to criticize him for screwing up so much. War on Terror used as a shield.

Vegosiux:
That's fancy for "just anti-government-I-disagree-with" if my experience with human beings has anything to say on the matters...

I'm quite diverse in my distaste for the current state of U.S. government, especially the illusion of the two-party system, and wish to terminate all terms of both Houses, the high court and White House, including all staff, and amend the Constitution for the direct abolition of political parties. Then impose extreme restrictions in order to have, perhaps for the first time in American history, an inclusive central government comprised of people that promote ideas rather than political and corporate agendas.

Quaxar:
Justice is balance.

/snip

Justice is not balance, justice is about what is right. It is not right to take away individual freedoms and socialism does. I am saying good luck and God bless to people who are needy. Many of us are needy. Life is hard and about sacrifice, it is not about collectivism and seizure of the private sector, businesses, money and land to create equilibrium. That is destructive, psychotic and anti-liberty. I am sorry for those that cannot get what they need and would like to help everyone, but no one can sign another's liberty away in order to do so.

Hope that clears things up.

Karma168:
You are always paying for stuff you don't need/want/agree with that's the very nature of taxes. If we let people decide what they want their taxes spent on there'd be no point in taking them because people would just want the money spent on them.

You're not being represented?

The "meat tax" was just an analogy. Public health care is not a tax, it's a system. Let people take care of their own bodies if they want. This is the fundamental principle against socialism: something of mine (my health) is none of yours nor the public's business.

Your second point is elections (and I could have voted for Obama for all you know). I dispute actions (or lack thereof). Accountability, transparency, righteousness and liberty. Every citizen should hold their government to account, all the more if they voted for garbage. The problem is when people believe the garbage we get is good and fair for all.

AgedGrunt:

Quaxar:
Justice is balance.

/snip

Justice is not balance, justice is about what is right. It is not right to take away individual freedoms and socialism does. I am saying good luck and God bless to people who are needy. Many of us are needy. Life is hard and about sacrifice, it is not about collectivism and seizure of the private sector, businesses, money and land to create equilibrium. That is destructive, psychotic and anti-liberty. I am sorry for those that cannot get what they need and would like to help everyone, but no one can sign another's liberty away in order to do so.

Hope that clears things up.

Actually... that was a quote from Batman Begins.

AgedGrunt:

Justice is not balance, justice is about what is right.

Is it right that people who work honest jobs struggle with making ends meet? Is it right that resources are wasted in the name of principle (because that's exactly what this anti-public-healthcare sentiment does, it incurs higher costs than the alternative)?

And seriously, plenty of people wouldn't know "sacrifice" if it hit them square in the face, and don't care about "liberty" but only about "my liberty" yet they keep preaching, so excuse me if I have reservations about that part.

AgedGrunt:
I am saying good luck and God bless to people who are needy.

That's a polite way of saying "fuck everybody else, go die in the gutter".

AgedGrunt:
Many of us are needy. Life is hard and about sacrifice, it is not about collectivism and seizure of the private sector, businesses, money and land to create equilibrium. That is destructive, psychotic and anti-liberty.

It's quite clear you don't know what a psychosis is, and your definition of liberty must also be fairly confused. Please don't use words you don't understand.

Liberty for instance has never comprised something like a 'right to buy three houses and four cars while others die of starvation'. That's an idea exclusive to the ultra-right conservatives in the US, not found anywhere else.

Well, outside of millionaires in third world countries trying to preserve their privilege while slums are piling up right next to their palatial estate perhaps.

AgedGrunt:
The "meat tax" was just an analogy. Public health care is not a tax, it's a system. Let people take care of their own bodies if they want. This is the fundamental principle against socialism: something of mine (my health) is none of yours nor the public's business.

Don't you think you owe us an explanation first on how 100% of the people will succeed in doing this on their own, without resorting to fallacies like 'charity will do it' or 'they can just save the money (while they never had)'?

AgedGrunt:

The "meat tax" was just an analogy. Public health care is not a tax, it's a system. Let people take care of their own bodies if they want. This is the fundamental principle against socialism: something of mine (my health) is none of yours nor the public's business.

Your second point is elections (and I could have voted for Obama for all you know). I dispute actions (or lack thereof). Accountability, transparency, righteousness and liberty. Every citizen should hold their government to account, all the more if they voted for garbage. The problem is when people believe the garbage we get is good and fair for all.

Actually your health is very much my concern. If you are walking around with a disease that you can't afford to vaccinate against and my child catches it before they're old enough to get vaccinated and die then I'll be very fucking pissed. If people don't get vaccinated it defeats the entire purpose of vaccination programs - ensuring that there is nowhere for the disease to incubate.

Or say I'm a business owner, I have to pay for when you are off on sick pay (afaik it's illegal to sack someone just because they are sick), if you're off with a serious condition that needs months of treatment (that I'm helping to pay for on top of wages) then I'm out of pocket. If I can pay for the $10 drugs that mean you're off work for 2 days then it's a win for me.

Capitalist medicine is the most disgusting thing in the world, it tries to make a profit off the suffering of other humans and I would have no problem with taking the CEOs of these companies behind the woodshed. I don't give a fuck if you feel your 'choice' is being infringed on, when it comes to healthcare I would rather have a healthy population that doesn't risk myself and my family than some idiotic libertarian who thinks choice is more important that disease control.

Vegosiux:
Is it right that people who work honest jobs struggle with making ends meet? Is it right that resources are wasted in the name of principle (because that's exactly what this anti-public-healthcare sentiment does, it incurs higher costs than the alternative)?

And seriously, plenty of people wouldn't know "sacrifice" if it hit them square in the face, and don't care about "liberty" but only about "my liberty" yet they keep preaching, so excuse me if I have reservations about that part.

Well I'm sorry, I guess when you hit a certain income threshold you lose honesty, become lazy and don't know what sacrifice is. It's definitely not these people who put their life-savings into their own businesses after working fifteen years of crappy jobs, or poured their blood, sweat and tears into making a better life, providing for their community, or growing corporations that create thousands of jobs. Of course when you earn $100k/year that means you sleep on a pile of money, eh? Good grief.

And if you want to get into the resource-wasting business you can start with Washington D.C. Many of you seem to think it will do a tip-top job running a national public healthcare system when it can't run anything else. Congress can't even sort out a fiscal crisis and budgets.

Blablahb:
That's a polite way of saying "fuck everybody else, go die in the gutter".

May I ask what you do for the world? You're either a hypocrite or possibly proving my point about voluntary charity.

By the way, people in higher incomes pay the bulk of taxes which does not "fuck everybody", it pays for everything the government does including food stamps, housing, unemployment. The wealthy donate to hospitals, where emergency rooms treat everyone and do not leave them to die in the gutter. But I know, that's just not good enough, even though it's far more than you've probably ever done for the needy.

Blablahb:
Liberty for instance has never comprised something like a 'right to buy three houses and four cars while others die of starvation'. That's an idea exclusive to the ultra-right conservatives in the US, not found anywhere else.

Well, outside of millionaires in third world countries trying to preserve their privilege while slums are piling up right next to their palatial estate perhaps.

Liberty is entirely about doing what you want as long as you aren't breaking laws or infringing upon others. If you earn a million dollars and pay your taxes, the rest of that money is yours to do what you want. That's not an exclusive idea, but it's hated almost exclusively by whiny, self-righteous indignant people who can only think up ways to take things that don't belong to them and give them to people because they feel guilty and pity the needy, which is vaguely insulting on its own.

Karma168:
Actually your health is very much my concern.

Capitalist medicine is the most disgusting thing in the world...

The CDC can take steps but vaccines should only be required in extreme cases, such as that happened with small pox or something like the black plague.

And I really don't care what you think of private medicine. Government is almost universally scrutinized, detested and dreaded by citizens. To have a fundamental desire to take something as important as health care and say, you know what, you do everything else wrong, but we want you to run this system that treats our bodies and puts us on drugs, we trust you to do that -- takes extraordinary levels of density. You're licensing care of your body to people who are not medical professionals and make the rest of your life miserable; why?

http://theweek.com/article/index/231267/is-america-running-out-of-doctors

Thats why. Long waiting periods due to so few doctors in primary care due to the high amount of schooling need.

Blablahb:

AgedGrunt:
I am saying good luck and God bless to people who are needy.

That's a polite way of saying "fuck everybody else, go die in the gutter".

AgedGrunt:
Many of us are needy. Life is hard and about sacrifice, it is not about collectivism and seizure of the private sector, businesses, money and land to create equilibrium. That is destructive, psychotic and anti-liberty.

It's quite clear you don't know what a psychosis is, and your definition of liberty must also be fairly confused. Please don't use words you don't understand.

Liberty for instance has never comprised something like a 'right to buy three houses and four cars while others die of starvation'. That's an idea exclusive to the ultra-right conservatives in the US, not found anywhere else.

Well, outside of millionaires in third world countries trying to preserve their privilege while slums are piling up right next to their palatial estate perhaps.

AgedGrunt:
The "meat tax" was just an analogy. Public health care is not a tax, it's a system. Let people take care of their own bodies if they want. This is the fundamental principle against socialism: something of mine (my health) is none of yours nor the public's business.

Don't you think you owe us an explanation first on how 100% of the people will succeed in doing this on their own, without resorting to fallacies like 'charity will do it' or 'they can just save the money (while they never had)'?

One The rich people who you resent pay the most taxes.

Two Not my problem I donate because my taxes eat up enough of my money, and the rich people who you hate pay for that as well

Three we have shorter waiting periods

Four I don't want to be like Europe with it's high waiting periods, or like Greece with it's so few doctors.

Five 100 percent is not possible, and is a utopia dream, and where have doctors turn way people

Six Emotions in government because while covering everyone seems nice in theory it does not work

Seven Atleast we don't have waiting periods

Eight The insurance companies Made the prices high you want it to change go to them not the government to give for one's every need

Nine Taxes take from people who WORKED FOR having a higher salary, and taking more money away from them is stealing because they had to go through allot in college, work experience,

Ten The world right now is not fair, and will never be, and we will never make any progress if we don't accept it for now, because unless we can find a way to reduce the cost of medical, and provide for more people we can't go to thee goverment to babysit us for those needs while the babysitter cost are high, and use percents

Heronblade:
Obamacare is not socialized medicine. It is a mandatory version of our previous privatized medicine system. It combines the worst of both worlds while adding few if any of the benefits of socialized health care that other countries enjoy.

This. I mean im ALL for socialized Medicine but Obama care is a pretty poor way to go about it. Your current system is pretty much garbage but Obama care doesnt really fix it. I think Obama is too scared to go RIGHT out there and use "Socialized medicine" as an idea without being totally lambasted by the opposition. Its obvious at this point the GOP isnt going to take prisoners, Obama doesnt win points for trying to be moderate to the point where it damages his position since he cant win them anyway.

Eekaida:
As a British person, I will always defend the NHS, and advocate it until the day I die. Of course it has its problems, as others have mentioned, but when a person is seriously ill, the last thing on their mind should be the cost of their medical care. Those who are anti-NHS can always choose to go private. Even on minimum wage, I don't mind paying a little extra tax each month so that, when I do need medical care, it won't cost me several grand. To be honest, I'm also baffled that people could be against it.

I agree. Working minimum wage im happy to give up some for medical care. One day i hope to be a doctor in the NHS after i get my degree in Biomedical sciences and ive never once thought about the money. I know doctors get by and live fulfilling lives. Thats all i need. I dont know what % of doctors are motivated by greed but ive yet to meet a fellow med student who outright states this is the case.

BiscuitTrouser:
This. I mean im ALL for socialized Medicine but Obama care is a pretty poor way to go about it. Your current system is pretty much garbage but Obama care doesnt really fix it. I think Obama is too scared to go RIGHT out there and use "Socialized medicine" as an idea without being totally lambasted by the opposition. Its obvious at this point the GOP isnt going to take prisoners, Obama doesnt win points for trying to be moderate to the point where it damages his position since he cant win them anyway.

Taking freedom away from people will always have opposition. Such has been alienated and labeled everything from hostage-taking, women-hating racists to anti-government, gun-toting extremists who want the poor to "fuck off and die".

And they just can't be won over. It's a mystery for the ages.

AgedGrunt:

Taking freedom away from people will always have opposition. Such has been alienated and labeled everything from hostage-taking, women-hating racists to anti-government, gun-toting extremists who want the poor to "fuck off and die".

And they just can't be won over. It's a mystery for the ages.

I have no idea what youre talking about... was this a mispost? Who said anything about taking away freedom... Who said these labels... was it me? What? Im really confused. I never even said it was a mystery... this post confuses me... it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Socialised health care isnt about freedom if instituting it is democratic.

In my country we voted for socialized healthcare and we voted to pay for it. I dont see how anyone was denied any freedoms there.

My issue is if youre going to propose a solution at least go and do one that might work, even if some people REALLY HATE it, rather than one that definitely wont just so those same people dont REALLY hate it and then let people decide. Obama care is a little bit shit. Thats all im saying on the matter and i think youre super projecting onto me. You seem a liiiiittle too eager to use the "ITS TAKING MY FREEDOMS!" card. Also please notice the thread doesnt say "IN AMERICA" so when i said i liked socialized healthcare i meant here in the UK. What you guys do is up to you, i just think Obama should have presented a better idea.

We haven't had a free market in the medical insurance field in nearly half a century.

We don't have health insurance we have health 'coverage'.

Insurance is part gambling, using a large pool of people to cover the risks.

If we had car insurance like we do our modern health 'coverage'. We would have tire & oil changes paid for through our insurance and we would likely have our car insurance pay for gas. What would car insurance cost?

Especially if every time someone smashed their car they didn't have to pay for it? Even if they had no insurance.

State & now federal governments tell local insurance companies what MUST can cover. Elective surgeries like LASEC & Plastic surgery go down or stay relatively the same price while all other prices go up. That's because there is no such thing as a free lunch and the money has to come from somewhere, that's why everyone's insurance has to go up every year.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked