Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Karma168:
Health care is not like owning a car, it has a benefit far beyond you, same as education.

That's why you pay towards something that may not benefit you right now - you have no way of knowing if you'll need it at some point in the future, as well as the wider benefits for the population which in turn benefits you.

So by stopping doctors prescribing ridiculously expensive medicines when there is a cheaper alternative that does exactly the same thing? Because that seems like a plus to me.

When almost half the country thinks the president is a Socialist (he's probably about the same as our Conservative party, if not further right) then I don't think you can say people are aware enough about politics to be making informed decisions on government or healthcare...

If you think of public health care as a thing you may not need but want the benefits of in case you ever do, it's the exact profile of insurance. All I'm saying.

Some see a broken private system and want government to overtake it. I see a broken government that hasn't fixed it, in fact profits from it and is corrupted because of it. I will not see the two married.

Blablahb:
Lucky you. You still use healthcare and still need to contribute to it though. If you'd been run over by a car, you'd want to be taken to a hospital and fixed up.

If you want to opt out, you must also never use healthcare. And nobody ever does that, so nobody deserves to opt out, simple.

If I get run over by a car I will be compensated by those liable. If I injure myself or develop cancer it is my responsibility, though many charitable people exist and I'd be grateful for that. I'm thankful you want to volunteer your money to my benefit when I need it, but you need to realize that you don't speak for everyone and must let them decide.

Hilarious. Join the public system or don't get healthcare? Am I supposed to debate some sort of monarch? If someone earns coverage through employment or can afford their own, then leave them alone. Go help people who need it; nobody's stopping you. What you want is to stop people whom you think are using cheat codes in life.

AgedGrunt:
If you think of public health care as a thing you may not need but want the benefits of in case you ever do, it's the exact profile of insurance. All I'm saying.
Some see a broken private system and want government to overtake it. I see a broken government that hasn't fixed it, in fact profits from it and is corrupted because of it. I will not see the two married.

Except there's no way to fix it, other than regulating it heavily, or just nationalising it altogether. The free market always messes up and keeps messing up if it doesn't automatically goes right the first time.

In this case for instance, needing profit and giving healthcare are opposites of eachother. So insurers in an unregulated private system have a motive to give bad quality and charge high premiums. Whereas a heavily regulated environment, the rules ensure that giving people healthcare, is what gives you profit, and thus it works.

AgedGrunt:
If I get run over by a car I will be compensated by those liable.

No you won't. If they keep going and aren't found, weren't at fault, weren't insured themselves or can't pay, you're not getting anything.

And then what? You're without the needed healthcare, you're bankrupt, and the taxpayer gets to pay the fat bill the hospital is left with for stablising you. It's a lose-lose-lose situation really. That's why there must be no opt-out of any kind. It's been shown to skyrocket medical costs and cause a lot of problems for many people.

AgedGrunt:
If I injure myself or develop cancer it is my responsibility, though many charitable people exist and I'd be grateful for that.

It's been said already that charity is a fallacy. Gambling that charity will magically fix things is not a solution. They tried that in the industrial revolution era, and it was a disaster.

AgedGrunt:
Hilarious. Join the public system or don't get healthcare? Am I supposed to debate some sort of monarch?

No, you're supposed to not be a hypocrite if you want to argue for opting out of healthcare.

And I'm yet to encounter the first-ever non-hypocrite among people who argue for privatised healthcare. They all want healthcare when they need it. None of them stand for what they say. So their arguments do not count. After all, to want to opt out just to cheat others out of healthcare, while wanting to go freeloading for oneself is not a valid option.

Blablahb:
Guns increase the amount of unsafety and violence, so that's a silly comparison. But you'll note how you're required to pay taxes to finance law enforcement, and can't opt out of paying by saying "I don't call the police if I become a victim of crime".

Your inability to protect yourself makes the neighborhood less safe.

There was a case in Tennessee that makes entertaining reading about a person that never paid the fire tax, then his house was on fire, and the fire dept simply made sure the giant bonfire (that was his house) didn't engulf his neighbors that paid the tax. He was given monthly noticed for years that if he didn't pay they wouldn't help him.

Do you think that it would make a good article of discussion Mr Blablahb?

Blablahb:

Likewise contributing your fair share to healthcare is not something optional either.

Precisely, pay for it yourself, unless you want to pick my pocket for someone that doesn't pull their own weight.
Redistribution of income at the point of the gun of the state, is theft. You are trying to pick fruit from a poisoned tree.

Blablahb:

Why on earth would you want to endanger thousands of lives like that?

Narrowing the scope of the FDA to only determine the harm of the drugs not the validity of their claims is dangerous, really? The FDA approves dangerous drugs all the time. Have you ever read the side effects? People are fully informed of the side effects anyways. This allows cheaper alternatives to flow into the marketplace. I am also in the belief that all drugs should be OTC. So long as the side effects are clearly labelled & you are responsible for your actions while under the influence of those drugs.

Blablahb:

Your reference is incorrect by the way. You can apply for testing for any product, purely natural or synthetic. The trick is ussually that if something is advertised as 'purely natural, better than pills', then you're dealing with quackery and fraud most of the time. Obviously you can't get quackery approved for medical purposes.

Then they would be revealed as that by the free market, word of mouth after all.

Unfortunately you only believe in the state.

Blablahb:
I don't have time for conspiracy theories, sorry.

Really then I would suggest reading the biography of Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, or just read about the treasury secretaries in recent memory. Check out what they are doing now. There is no conspiracy, it's fact. Do you own research you don't have to believe me however likely you just parrot the liberal line. The latter requires less thought, after all freedom requires more. Do what you are suited towards.

Blablahb:
But congress are not people appointed because they're so smart or knowledgeable about the subject. They're people appointed because they convinced 51% or more that they should be on that seat, often using strategies that have nothing to do with their wisdom. Good example is how you can still get republicans elected at all despite their total lack of solutions for just about anything, but the US budget most of all. How come they still get people elected while they only offer more of the failed small government conservatism that got the US in this mess? Because people don't vote for the best candidate and don't have all the information.

Really like the shut off your electronic devices on your flight?

I'm a libertarian, the republican party of recent memory is filled with mostly trash.

In regards to the regulators;
They aren't smart, they just think they know better than you. Why do Europeans always seek to create a new ruling class out of your equals. Or is it a human condition?

Blablahb:
So you create agencies like the FDA which do have that knowhow which the elected officials haven't, and you order them to come up with some arrangement, they take care of the technical details, elected officials approve or disapprove based on the evaluation. That's how responsible governing works.

And where does this know how come from, all this experience they need, the private sector. Or someone that is transported in with a bubble from the ivory tower. We've had those elected in mass in 2008. The last small government administration faced a worse fiscal crisis than 08, & the 1929 crash, and they managed to solve it.

It started with firing half of them.

Then the fed created a credit bubble and the progressive that was in office tried intervention.

Blablahb:

A good example of why what you're saying would only end in disaster is found among another outlandish claim by other conservatives: They want to abolish FEMA and other forms of disaster response, claiming it's somehow bad.
Me, I think those conservatives had better been drunk when they came up with that idea, because it's laughable. The effectiveness of those agencies has been proven in numbers like handing out clean water after Katrina, which prevented epidemics from breaking out.

And much like your claims, they had no arguments to offer why the free market would somehow magically make everything alright after they fucked up the working solution.

That's why Louisiana kept their democrat governor, right? Oh wait they got rid of that piece of crap and dragged in a Republican that is improving education performance by implementing school choice and is abolishing the state income tax.

Why should states send out their own money to the federal government for disaster money only to lobby for their own money back when the disaster hits? Simple, statists like making people more vulnerable so only the state is the solution.

Our capitalist system was stripped from us when we moved from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Small government has been dead since FDR.

Your inability to wrap your mind around the paradigm, is quite frankly a psychological problem.

AgedGrunt:

If I get run over by a car I will be compensated by those liable. If I injure myself or develop cancer it is my responsibility, though many charitable people exist and I'd be grateful for that. I'm thankful you want to volunteer your money to my benefit when I need it, but you need to realize that you don't speak for everyone and must let them decide.

A) Assumes you will ever see a dime in compensation (hit and run, not at fault, etc.)
B) Assumes it won't take years to get that compensation.

If you don't get the money then what? You'll have already racked up thousands in hospital bills from emergency care and physio to make sure you aren't crippled. If you don't get money and don't have any then the government is forced to pick up the bill anyway.

You are saying you don't want to see the government involved in healthcare but then say you are going to gamble when you know there is always going to be a safety net there to clear your debt. If you can't pay all you do is declare bankruptcy and the government will have to cover your bill because they have to ensure hospitals are available for the populace. You want to spend a week in Vegas with someone else's credit card and you don't care because none of the risk is on your shoulders.

aelreth:

Your inability to protect yourself makes the neighborhood less safe.

A reaction to a crime is what causes crime... Riight. There are plenty of guns in the hands of gang members, guns are used to protect yourself so gangs members should be safe from crime..... oh wait

Take away the gang on gang homicides that are the firearm homicides from just Chicago last year for instance, and 80% of them vanish.

Your ability to defend yourself has bugger all to do with how safe somewhere is.

Urban areas breed irresponsible people.

And you know that because you grew up in one? Or you read crime stats and figure 2+2=5? I grew up in an urban area (not NYC/Chicago density but still 'urban') as did nearly everyone in my University class, are we irresponsible because we were raised in urban areas? No that's just plain stupid.

To say that urban areas breed irresponsible people (whatever that actually means) is ridiculous, a person is not controlled simply by whether they grew up in a city or the countryside. Urban areas can have problems but these problems are equally possible in the countryside -shit jobs/wages, crap schools, awful services and negligent parents (because they have to work all day) - all of these things can happen anywhere with any population size.

Then they would be revealed as that by the free market, word of mouth after all.

Ever heard of the placebo effect? You can give someone a sugar pill but as long as you don't tell them it's a fake they'll feel better as if you've actually done something to help them. If people believe something is helping them then they will give it a glowing review, regardless if it helps them or not - people with cancer have been turning down chemotherapy for 'natural' remedies online and others have been using iPhone apps to diagnose whether a mole is cancerous or not.

Do you honestly think if we scrapped regulation of drugs companies would self regulate? The idea of selling 0.1 sugar pills at $2 a pop would have dollar signs popping up in their eyes. You'd see a market flooded with BS remedies that gullible people will buy because they believe it works.

What incentive would there be to make over the counter drugs that actually work (which costs millions in R&D)if you can just trick people into believing they've bought a working remedy?

And where does this know how come from, all this experience they need, the private sector.

Yes the private sector provides jobs and experience, but that doesn't mean it take over government roles in areas like regulation. If profits get involved then the point of regulation (making sure things are safe) goes out the window. Why would corporations apply costly rules like the drug testing procedure, carbon reduction programs, etc.?

That's why Louisiana kept their democrat governor, right? Oh wait they got rid of that piece of crap and dragged in a Republican that is improving education performance by implementing school choice and is abolishing the state income tax.

Why should states send out their own money to the federal government for disaster money only to lobby for their own money back when the disaster hits? Simple, statists like making people more vulnerable so only the state is the solution.

Just because they got rid of an incompetent politician does not mean they suddenly want all government gone.

And you haven't actually answered Blahbs question. All you've done is said a central system is bad. He asked why the private sector would step in instead of government (state or federal). Quite simply, they wouldn't. There's no profit in disaster relief if there is no government there to pay the bill, are the people with nothing going to be able to pay?

If you got rid of the federal system you'd just end up with 50 states versions that wouldn't be effective. You'd have states that cant budget for the amount of damage they suffer every year, especially high risk areas like the gulf coast and tornado alley. If they cant balance the books they'll either borrow from other states or from the federal government. When you get areas that are being effectively subsidised by the rest of the US you're right back where you started; the whole of the US supporting an area that needs more than it has.

Karma168:

A reaction to a crime is what causes crime... Riight. There are plenty of guns in the hands of gang members, guns are used to protect yourself so gangs members should be safe from crime..... oh wait

Why wouldn't gang members protect themselves?

If they had a reputation for not defending themselves they would be seen as weak and wiped out

Karma168:

Your ability to defend yourself has bugger all to do with how safe somewhere is.

Remove certain select neighborhoods in Chicago, and it becomes as safe as London is. Why do I hear tales of home owners is upscale neighborhoods in London having their security tested if not have their homes invaded while they are inside?

That's easy, the barbarians have no fear of those inside.

Karma168:

And you know that because you grew up in one? Or you read crime stats and figure 2+2=5? I grew up in an urban area (not NYC/Chicago density but still 'urban') as did nearly everyone in my University class, are we irresponsible because we were raised in urban areas? No that's just plain stupid.

To say that urban areas breed irresponsible people (whatever that actually means) is ridiculous, a person is not controlled simply by whether they grew up in a city or the countryside. Urban areas can have problems but these problems are equally possible in the countryside -shit jobs/wages, crap schools, awful services and negligent parents (because they have to work all day) - all of these things can happen anywhere with any population size.

The US has 50 laboratories right now, yet different demographics cause different things. The more urban, the more dangerous.

Karma168:

Ever heard of the placebo effect? You can give someone a sugar pill but as long as you don't tell them it's a fake they'll feel better as if you've actually done something to help them. If people believe something is helping them then they will give it a glowing review, regardless if it helps them or not - people with cancer have been turning down chemotherapy for 'natural' remedies online and others have been using iPhone apps to diagnose whether a mole is cancerous or not.

Do you honestly think if we scrapped regulation of drugs companies would self regulate? The idea of selling 0.1 sugar pills at $2 a pop would have dollar signs popping up in their eyes. You'd see a market flooded with BS remedies that gullible people will buy because they believe it works.

What incentive would there be to make over the counter drugs that actually work (which costs millions in R&D)if you can just trick people into believing they've bought a working remedy?

That would be an interesting bondholder & shareholder meeting.

And if the Board was stupid enough to go along with it, every single shareholder deserves to lose everything for not paying attention.

As for Placebos. I've known of the phenomena, could make a few references to them but do you have any suggestions on the books on it?

If the placebo worked? Someone would just make a cheaper Placebo. If people realized it wouldn't work why would the store carry it? Why waste valuable space on the floor when they can sell something more reliable? Why would a doctor recommend it and risk tarnishing his reputation. Regulation keeps the doctor from saying that an alternative exists that isn't approved by the FDA.

Self regulating means they will always remove the dead weight, because the only thing any company wants is to provide a return on investment.

The dead weight is the hiring of the countless paper-pushers, accountants and legal teams needed to comply with the regulations that are put upon them. The costs of these extras are included on any price.

This also means that smaller companies cannot enter the marketplace, even if they have better, cheaper products/ideas, they must comply with the high barriers to entry placed by the regulating class. How does this benefit the consumer?

Karma168:

Yes the private sector provides jobs and experience, but that doesn't mean it take over government roles in areas like regulation. If profits get involved then the point of regulation (making sure things are safe) goes out the window. Why would corporations apply costly rules like the drug testing procedure, carbon reduction programs, etc.?

Why is profit a problem? If it is too much a better business man will operate at a shrewder margin. Lack of regulation does not mean liability goes out the window. Would a grocer want to be known that he sells rotting meat? Reputation is important, it keeps your customer coming back, and a good service means they can tell their friends about it. Also those hoardes of compliance busybodies would need jobs, they could also be hired to verify claims. Or sue shitty pharmaceuticals to nothing.

Karma168:

Just because they got rid of an incompetent politician does not mean they suddenly want all government gone.

And you haven't actually answered Blahbs question. All you've done is said a central system is bad. He asked why the private sector would step in instead of government (state or federal). Quite simply, they wouldn't. There's no profit in disaster relief if there is no government there to pay the bill, are the people with nothing going to be able to pay?

If you got rid of the federal system you'd just end up with 50 states versions that wouldn't be effective. You'd have states that cant budget for the amount of damage they suffer every year, especially high risk areas like the gulf coast and tornado alley. If they cant balance the books they'll either borrow from other states or from the federal government. When you get areas that are being effectively subsidised by the rest of the US you're right back where you started; the whole of the US supporting an area that needs more than it has.

Tornado alley actually is much smaller in cost in scale to a hurricane, the chances of being hit by one is low enough that insurance companies can actually both make a profit and rebuild homes. Take the chances of having your house smashed by a tornado, then spread that coverage and fees to do both. Personally I think that embezzlement should be a capital offense alongside estate forfeiture. I grew up in a 'at risk area' for tornadoes. It's very rare.

Florida only started being settled after we started paying for their hurricane repairs. It simply would never have been built. Rich people built houses along the coast lines, not only for the great view but because only they could pay to rebuild their houses that often. Instead the the middle class and the poor that were working their way into the middle class ended up subsidizing the rich.

Then we have a few other problems, government policy is teaching people not to prepare for disasters, the monetary policy is causing people to stop saving and be in debt. A pantry used to be used to store months worth of food now this is being discouraged, for example.

A solution, could we agree that New Jersey or Manhattan provide more money via taxes than North Dakota, South Dakota or Utah?

If we can, then ask why they have to negotiate with them for their own money back?

I have no problem if the States collected the federal taxes then sent it to the feds. I would prefer it. Simply put on April 15th 2013 the message would be from those states to the Feds, we have to pay this bill first, we'll send you the change.

To be honest, neither mechanism of central government or private sector is free of risk, on the other hand prudence requires both discipline but at least the individual will act in their own interest (doesn't prevent squandering though [although with no expectation of charity he will be less likely to squander it]). Embezzlement by either public or private party should be in my opinion be dealt with in a manner that would make Draco blush.

My computer glitched and I lost my reply to this post so i'll just focus on this bit.

aelreth:
Self regulating means they will always remove the dead weight, because the only thing any company wants is to provide a return on investment.

The dead weight is the hiring of the countless paper-pushers, accountants and legal teams needed to comply with the regulations that are put upon them. The costs of these extras are included on any price.

This also means that smaller companies cannot enter the marketplace, even if they have better, cheaper products/ideas, they must comply with the high barriers to entry placed by the regulating class. How does this benefit the consumer?

The dead weight of these regulations is very much necessary; while the jobs you listed are not involved in gathering the data directly it is their job to make sure all the data needed to back up any scientific, legal and financial claims is collated and correct. This needs to be done regardless of if the FDA were asking for it or not; a company needs to be able to back up what it's claiming to board members, investors, patent offices and hospitals to prove that their drug is a sound product.

All the costs associated with the FDA approval process would (and should) exist even if the FDA was dismantled. The costs are incurred simply by performing enough checks to ensure the product is safe, while government mandated if companies were ethical they would have to do them anyway and tbh the idea of them not performing the checks doesn't bear thinking about.

And that's one of the reasons drugs being one of those industries that have high entry barriers might be a good thing. If you cant afford to run all the checks and balances needed on a drug to ensure it wont kill people then maybe you shouldn't be marketing it. One slip in the testing process and you end up with another thalidomide on your hands.

Karma168:
One slip in the testing process and you end up with another thalidomide on your hands.

Well some people believe that freedom requires sacrifice. Of course, usually in form of other people's sacrifice toward their own freedom.

And that's why I call bullshit on all the "freedom" arguments against socialized healthcare or other government-sponsored safety nets. People who are loudest about how important they think freedom is, only think so of their own freedom.

aelreth:
Why do I hear tales of home owners is upscale neighborhoods in London having their security tested if not have their homes invaded while they are inside?

What tales are these? Because I live in London, and this is the first I've heard of a wave of home-invasion crimes in the richer neighborhoods. Not that I live in one of them--I live in a not-great area of southeast London. Still, though, the worst crime that's ever happened to me has been getting a bicycle stolen. I'm going to need some sources for this, because "I heard you like mudkips some things" isn't quite substantive.

Karma168:
My computer glitched and I lost my reply to this post so i'll just focus on this bit.

aelreth:
Self regulating means they will always remove the dead weight, because the only thing any company wants is to provide a return on investment.

The dead weight is the hiring of the countless paper-pushers, accountants and legal teams needed to comply with the regulations that are put upon them. The costs of these extras are included on any price.

This also means that smaller companies cannot enter the marketplace, even if they have better, cheaper products/ideas, they must comply with the high barriers to entry placed by the regulating class. How does this benefit the consumer?

The dead weight of these regulations is very much necessary; while the jobs you listed are not involved in gathering the data directly it is their job to make sure all the data needed to back up any scientific, legal and financial claims is collated and correct. This needs to be done regardless of if the FDA were asking for it or not; a company needs to be able to back up what it's claiming to board members, investors, patent offices and hospitals to prove that their drug is a sound product.

All the costs associated with the FDA approval process would (and should) exist even if the FDA was dismantled. The costs are incurred simply by performing enough checks to ensure the product is safe, while government mandated if companies were ethical they would have to do them anyway and tbh the idea of them not performing the checks doesn't bear thinking about.

And that's one of the reasons drugs being one of those industries that have high entry barriers might be a good thing. If you cant afford to run all the checks and balances needed on a drug to ensure it wont kill people then maybe you shouldn't be marketing it. One slip in the testing process and you end up with another thalidomide on your hands.

Could you re-read my posts regarding the FDA?

I never wanted to abolish it. I want the FDA to merely determine the HARM it does. I want any drug on sale to disclose the harm it does. That determines if it is safe. This also allows more products to be approved by the FDA every year. More products equals more choice in the marketplace.

If you want to sell snake oil, that's great. The FDA and the snake oil salesman verify the harm that it does, then the the salesman must disclose it.

There are people on the planet that can self-medicate. With the internet being used for civilian use, ordinary people can try.

If you don't feel they are safe, you can listen to your doctor and use the medication as directed. You are free do as you see fit.

Buzz Killington:

aelreth:
Why do I hear tales of home owners is upscale neighborhoods in London having their security tested if not have their homes invaded while they are inside?

What tales are these? Because I live in London, and this is the first I've heard of a wave of home-invasion crimes in the richer neighborhoods. Not that I live in one of them--I live in a not-great area of southeast London. Still, though, the worst crime that's ever happened to me has been getting a bicycle stolen. I'm going to need some sources for this, because "I heard you like mudkips some things" isn't quite substantive.

\http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

\http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c84_1248182029

Karma168:
A) Assumes you will ever see a dime in compensation (hit and run, not at fault, etc.)
B) Assumes it won't take years to get that compensation.

You are saying you don't want to see the government involved in healthcare but then say you are going to gamble when you know there is always going to be a safety net there to clear your debt.

There's no making assumptions nor "gambling" on anything. Furthermore in a socialized system you are providing a safety net with what culpability or responsibility, exactly? Seems to me the incentives for not, you know, bankrupting a public health care system is to regulate behavior (smoking, obesity, etc.). Why we've seen ridiculous shit like attacking cigarettes, smokers themselves, bans on large capacity fizzy drinks, and shoving health food down kids' throats in school cafeterias.

I don't mind government regulation, but there's a difference between regulation and subjection.

Blablahb:
Except there's no way to fix it, other than regulating it heavily, or..

Yeah. Kind of what I said the government ought to be doing. Socialists drone on and on about the private industry screwing people over for profit and won't lift a finger to improve their government, they just start handing over all control to it, who then continue screwing people.

I demand the best from government to represent me, I don't reward it with more power for representing crooks, fiends and for lying and cheating all people with unnecessary spending, wars, corruption and political agendas that put the public good behind advancing those with power and money.

The FDA is out of order. The EPA is run by loonies. The ICE is headed by people who refuse to do their jobs. The Treasury is run by people who have bankrupted my nation and my state's credit rating just fell to the lowest in the nation with a $90+ billion problem. Governments by and large cannot manage for shit here because people elect idiots. Why would I want to vote them the authority to run health care into insolvency, too?

When that cynicism goes away I'll address other points.

AgedGrunt:
I demand the best from government to represent me, I don't reward it with more power for representing crooks, fiends and for lying and cheating all people with unnecessary spending, wars, corruption and political agendas that put the public good behind advancing those with power and money.

The FDA is out of order. The EPA is run by loonies. The ICE is headed by people who refuse to do their jobs. The Treasury is run by people who have bankrupted my nation and my state's credit rating just fell to the lowest in the nation with a $90+ billion problem. Governments by and large cannot manage for shit here because people elect idiots. Why would I want to vote them the authority to run health care into insolvency, too?

I'm sorry but I don't buy silly conspiracy theories or that 'the government is the enemy' rhetoric. The main cause of this is because I have found by experience that 99% of it is either nonsense, or caused by small government conservatism.

If you want to talk about "socialized healthcare", there are arguments against it. But if you mean "universal healthcare" there really isn't any sane, rational argument against it. None whatsoever. There is just no criterion where it is not superior to the alternative.

Blablahb:
I'm sorry but I don't buy silly conspiracy theories or that 'the government is the enemy' rhetoric. The main cause of this is because I have found by experience that 99% of it is either nonsense, or caused by small government conservatism.

The national debt of the U.S. is just shy of a Large Hadron Collider (6.19bn euros) every other day.

Ya, small government tin-foil hat stuff here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Anyway I see we're at the end of the discussion rope. Cheers.

An argument against the nhs that i havent seen before is that it takes doctors from many different countries, a lot of them who maybe are needed more in their original countries.

All inn all i support the nhs and think its right, i just havent heard anyone say this yet.

AgedGrunt:

Blablahb:
I'm sorry but I don't buy silly conspiracy theories or that 'the government is the enemy' rhetoric. The main cause of this is because I have found by experience that 99% of it is either nonsense, or caused by small government conservatism.

The national debt of the U.S. is just shy of a Large Hadron Collider (6.19bn euros) every other day.

Ya, small government tin-foil hat stuff here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Anyway I see we're at the end of the discussion rope. Cheers.

Have you considered that the government is in debt because the people approve of things that happen to raise debt, and it's the people who decide if they get to keep their jobs, not because they're comic book supervillains?

The only one I can think of is personal responsibility, but things like cancer dont really discriminate between rich and poor so that kicks that one in the teeth.

ComradeJim270:
Have you considered that the government is in debt because the people approve of things that happen to raise debt, and it's the people who decide if they get to keep their jobs, not because they're comic book supervillains?

The people don't approve spending bills; they don't read them. Congress & President run the table. Not a pure democracy.

People approve a turf war between two sides that have America firmly divided. Gerrymandering and a broken electoral system don't help matters.

Government takes and votes to take more. They borrow 40 cents on our dollar and have run up a debt that would swallow most of the civilized planet. Americans didn't technically approve, more like cheering a heated football match with dirty players refereed by crooked officials.

AgedGrunt:
The national debt of the U.S. is just shy of a Large Hadron Collider (6.19bn euros) every other day.

And if they hadn't made mistake like the current deregulated healthcare insurance system and a few other small government conservative ideas that turned out catastrophic, that deficit would be a lot smaller. Especially the ridiculously low taxes and the regressive tax are big contributors.

Basically the debt you're seeing now, is the money not spent on necessary government services, but on tax cuts for the rich, pretty much over the past decades.

Blablahb:

AgedGrunt:
The national debt of the U.S. is just shy of a Large Hadron Collider (6.19bn euros) every other day.

And if they hadn't made mistake like the current deregulated healthcare insurance system and a few other small government conservative ideas that turned out catastrophic, that deficit would be a lot smaller. Especially the ridiculously low taxes and the regressive tax are big contributors.

Basically the debt you're seeing now, is the money not spent on necessary government services, but on tax cuts for the rich, pretty much over the past decades.

We're way off topic and even then you're merely capable of repeating talking points. Are we so tired of defending socialized healthcare?

Though I would contend that the disastrous effects of runaway government and the greater argument for collecting the people under the banner of a massive central power which continues to creep on their daily lives is a good segue into the pitfall of socialism.

IndomitableSam:
Coming from someone who lives in Canada... it doesn't always work the way it should. It can taeke a year from getting cancer positive results to getting further tests or treatments. It takes me months to get in to see my doctor - even for something important. We still pay for dental work, eye care, drugs (jncluding cancer drugs), birth control, so forth.

Also... research 'Obamacare' before you call it socialized medicine... it's not. At all.

I am an American living in Canada (Quebec) and I can tell you firsthand that there is a shortage of doctors in this province and there are waiting lists for surgeries etc. Back in November or so I called to get an appointment for a regular GYN checkup and they weren't taking patients until January. I called again and oh, I needed a referral. I went to a clinic for the referral and was told my "family doctor" had to do it. I don't have a family doctor. I had to pay a specialist to get the referral. After a few more calls I finally got my appointment -- for 3 weeks later. I finally saw the doc today.

I once waited in a clinic for 8 hours. Usually the wait is going to be about 4 or so. On rare occasions I have been seen within 2.

Also, Alberta is the only province where one does not pay a healthcare premium. In Quebec it is $200 per person, per tax year (not too bad but the doctors are unavailable so factor that in). In Ontario it goes by income so a family making about 75K a year will pay about $750 a year. Again, you MUST have supplemental insurance to cover mental health, eyeglasses, and the dentist etc. These are not covered by the government.

People here are desperate for doctors. Doctors are not staying in the province because of horrible bureaucrat rules. There are not enough hospitals. Doctors are not taking new patients. Clinics have a cut off for number of patients a doctor is allowed to see in a day, so one day you might go to a clinic at noon to find out they have stopped taking patients for the day.

I have been here 2 years and still don't have a family doctor. We only just got a pediatrician for my child a few months ago.

As an aside, if you want a spot in one of the $7 a day daycares then you may be on a waiting list for upwards of 1.5 years. Women get on waiting lists before even getting pregnant because of this. Private daycares are $35 a day but the government will refund some so you end up paying about $10 a day or so.

(I must say I was able to find a clinic when I lived in Vancouver which cost me $50 cash each visit and I didn't need a referral, but I did need a referral to see a specialist if I needed to. I only lived there a short while so you'd have to research it.)

I see Obamacare as basically forcing people to get health insurance. I don't see it as the same thing that Canada has. BTW Canada has really high taxes. We pay 5%, total it, and then add another 9.5% to that so about 15% tax on everything you buy here. (It is so expensive that we are seriously working on moving back to the States. We simply can not afford to live here even though we are upper middle class.)

I would like to see people who are uninsured given some semblance of care to make sure they are able to function and work. I am not convinced that Obamacare is the answer, though. I am against forcing people to buy into anything etc. It kind of goes against the whole "freedom of choice" thing.

I have a couple:
1. too expensive
2. can hurt the medical field and the market.
3. wont work in America because it's too exploitable and American tend to live bad life styles anyway, but we value personal choices and individual liberties as a high priority so we cant do anything about it.
4. our government cant even run the post office.
5. If you deregulate insurance companies and make it to where they have a huge increase in competition (which in itself acts as regulation, since it wont allow for one company to gain an upper hand or exploit loopholes) you can reduce the cost of health care and increase the range of benefits they'll cover because they will compete for customers, and as a bonus they'll compete for employees as well.

Jegsimmons:
I have a couple:
1. too expensive
2. can hurt the medical field and the market.
3. wont work in America because it's too exploitable and American tend to live bad life styles anyway, but we value personal choices and individual liberties as a high priority so we cant do anything about it.
4. our government cant even run the post office.
5. If you deregulate insurance companies and make it to where they have a huge increase in competition (which in itself acts as regulation, since it wont allow for one company to gain an upper hand or exploit loopholes) you can reduce the cost of health care and increase the range of benefits they'll cover because they will compete for customers, and as a bonus they'll compete for employees as well.

Uhm, except none of that happens. For example private deregulated healthcare like the US has now, is far more expensive than both completely state-run state-paid healthcare, and heavily regulated mix-forms with private insurance.

As for the supposed US government incompetence, a lot of that is mythology. And the real problems are often caused because small government conservatives purposely sabotage the workings of a government agency, and then use that as a cover to make it defunct or abolish it. A good example is Mitt Romney's "Let's abolish FEMA and the free market will magically make disasters disappear" claim. Another example came up recently. The ATF was under fire for not being too effective, turns out the gun lobby pressed through legislation that pretty much sabotages what the ATF can do. Big surprise that after years of throwing wrenches in it, some systems grind to a halt.

Also regarding your last point: Why do you think they exploit loopholes? Because fucking over customers is more profitable for healthcare insurance. If you deregulate, you're playing right into their hands, because it's no longer a loophole, but allowed everywhere. The answer to a loophole, is tightening the regulations so the loophole is closed. The insurance of the US, deregulated as it is, already costs a lot more and covers less (see my earlier comparison) compared to health insurance that operates in a much more heavily regulated country.

Blablahb:
...private deregulated healthcare like the US has now, is far more expensive than both completely state-run state-paid healthcare, and heavily regulated mix-forms with private insurance.

As for the supposed US government incompetence, a lot of that is mythology..
...small government conservatives purposely sabotage the workings of a government agency, and then use that as a cover to make it defunct or abolish it.

The ATF was under fire for not being too effective, turns out the gun lobby pressed through legislation that pretty much sabotages what the ATF can do. Big surprise that after years of throwing wrenches in it, some systems grind to a halt.

The answer to a loophole, is tightening the regulations so the loophole is closed.

All this talk about regulation is something a government, namely the U.S. government, can and should be doing without resorting to socialism. Why isn't it happening?

Right. The gun lobby's press for legislation changes murdered dozens at Waco, sold arms to drug cartels that are killing people now and oh by the way, just had another embarrassing botched operation in Milwaukee where they ran a fake business out of an apartment, destroyed it, got burglarized for tens of thousands in merchandise and even lost a rifle (stolen out of their truck). They refuse to pay for damages, were arresting the wrong people (even someone that was already in jail) and basically got nothing out of it; it was aborted.

But it's just small-government, conservative sabotage.

AgedGrunt:

All this talk about regulation is something a government, namely the U.S. government, can and should be doing without resorting to socialism. Why isn't it happening?

Clearly the perception that it isn't happening stems from people being misinformed as to what socialism actually is. You decided to see it as "socialism", so I don't see what's the point of asking other people why you see things the way you chose to see them.

adamsaccount:
An argument against the nhs that i havent seen before is that it takes doctors from many different countries, a lot of them who maybe are needed more in their original countries.

All inn all i support the nhs and think its right, i just havent heard anyone say this yet.

Surely that would apply to any medical system of the first world though. An American or British hospital no doubt pays a hell of a lot more than an Indian hospital (for example) so that would be a bigger reason to move to the UK compared to the fact the NHS is government run. That's an argument for border locking (i.e. no migration) rather than against the idea of socialised healthcare.

Jegsimmons:
I have a couple:
1. too expensive
2. can hurt the medical field and the market.
3. wont work in America because it's too exploitable and American tend to live bad life styles anyway, but we value personal choices and individual liberties as a high priority so we cant do anything about it.
4. our government cant even run the post office.
5. If you deregulate insurance companies and make it to where they have a huge increase in competition (which in itself acts as regulation, since it wont allow for one company to gain an upper hand or exploit loopholes) you can reduce the cost of health care and increase the range of benefits they'll cover because they will compete for customers, and as a bonus they'll compete for employees as well.

1. American spends double the %GDP that Britain does and doesn't cover everyone while the NHS does.[1]

2. How will it hurt the medical field?

3. Every medical system is exploitable; go in, say your sick and get a check-up - that's all it takes, all that's different is who gets sent the bill; the government or the insurance company. Either way everyone already pays for it (as insurance companies will increase premiums to cover the losses).

And there are these nifty things called taxes that can be directed to shitty lifestyle habits that negative affect health. Best example is alcohol and tobacco - both incredibly harmful and end up costing millions in healthcare to deal with the effects. So taxes are levelled against these products to recoup the money spent on treating the effects (e.g if alcohol related disease costs $100 million, you add a tax that adds $0.05 to a bottle of beer that raises the $100M needed to cover costs).

And these taxes hardly harm the responsible people. For example the Scottish minimum pricing of alcohol law means you can't sell alcohol for less than a set price per unit. Now most decent drinks are already well above this limit and aren't affected in the slightest, the only things affected are cheap (usually stores own brand) drinks and big multibuys. These kinds of products are bought by one type of drinker - the ones who want to get as drunk as possible for as little money as possible - irresponsible binge drinkers and alcoholics.

Responsible drinkers aren't affected in the slightest and so don't pick up the cost (and if they do it's negligible) while people who would end up in hospital with alcohol related issues are the ones paying for it the most.

4. There's a saying "you get what you paid for". If America won't elect a decent government is it any wonder you have a crap one? Insist on a good government (in any case) and this problem goes out the window. At the very least it can be farmed out to a expert group in government with a 10 year ring-fenced minimum budget to stop it being screwed over by small government politicians who want to undercut it to the point of failure (like they do every other government program).

5. If you deregulate then companies will just gouge the market as much as they can because they can and they don't have to worry because everyone is doing it as well. Take energy prices; they had been rising by up to 19% per year in the UK because there were no regulations on how much they could raise prices. When it comes to essential markets (food, energy, healthcare) the free market is the absolute worst model because these are things you cannot say no to and have to purchase, they can charge whatever they want and you'll have no choice but to pay.

[1] In case you want to argue America is bigger; US GDP is ~6-7X larger than the UK while population is only ~5X

Vegosiux:

Clearly the perception that it isn't happening stems from people being misinformed as to what socialism actually is. You decided to see it as "socialism", so I don't see what's the point of asking other people why you see things the way you chose to see them.

I don't see regulations as socialism. I see socialism as an unjust, extreme alternative to a system of government that works for the people and doesn't infringe on their day-to-day lives. In the U.S. they're not working for the people, we're sold out.

Evidently I'm the only one seeing the problem with giving such a corrupt and tainted government more power.

AgedGrunt:

I don't see regulations as socialism. I see socialism as an unjust, extreme alternative to a system of government that works for the people and doesn't infringe on their day-to-day lives. In the U.S. they're not working for the people, we're sold out.

Evidently I'm the only one seeing the problem with giving such a corrupt and tainted government more power.

Yes, well, as I said, if you want to see it as "socialism", you'll see it as "socialism". Which is funny, since "socialism" isn't even a form of government in the first place; it is a form of ownership of means of production.

The word you're looking for, I'd say, is more like "hegemony", but that's something the U.S. government is still far from.

AgedGrunt:
All this talk about regulation is something a government, namely the U.S. government, can and should be doing without resorting to socialism. Why isn't it happening?
Right. The gun lobby's press for legislation changes murdered dozens at Waco, sold arms to drug cartels that are killing people now and oh by the way, just had another embarrassing botched operation in Milwaukee where they ran a fake business out of an apartment, destroyed it, got burglarized for tens of thousands in merchandise and even lost a rifle (stolen out of their truck). They refuse to pay for damages, were arresting the wrong people (even someone that was already in jail) and basically got nothing out of it; it was aborted.

But it's just small-government, conservative sabotage.

I don't really see how this responds to my post. I point out how conservatives sabotage the workings of government agencies, and you sum up their failures caused by that sabotage, and then claim it's proof that sabotage isn't taking place? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

For instance needing to go after the cartels results from the US allowing the gun lobby to make huge amounts of money from arming Mexican drug cartels. If that gun trafficking had been banned, the ATF wouldn't need to go after it in that form; they could just arrest the gun sellers who arm the cartels.

But because the weapon manafacturers and sellers bankroll a lot of things, from the republicans to the NRA, their profits are more important than stopping drug crime, and the ATF has to fight an uphill battle trying to stop gun trafficking, while most of that is legal and thus unstoppable.

IsadoraD:
I would like to see people who are uninsured given some semblance of care to make sure they are able to function and work. I am not convinced that Obamacare is the answer, though. I am against forcing people to buy into anything etc. It kind of goes against the whole "freedom of choice" thing.

The whole deal with Obamacare is because people either don't want or can't afford health insurance. So they can't get the care that they need, their conditions get worse, and in the end they have to be fixed up at elevated costs at the expense of the taxpayers.

Obamacare adresses that problem of people not being able to get healthcare, or parasiting on society by not buying health insurance when they can easily afford it and then getting healthcare anyway.

And it's a good thing; the deregulated healthcare has brought the US a huge amount of healthcare costs per capita, whereas heavily regulated private or nationalised systems perform much better. Canada for instance pays almost half of that per capita for their healthcare system, which makes it a ton better than in the US, and Canada too is still a country with extremely low taxes and low government expenditure.

Blablahb:
I don't really see how this responds to my post. I point out how conservatives sabotage the workings of government agencies, and you sum up their failures caused by that sabotage, and then claim it's proof that sabotage isn't taking place? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

The whole deal with Obamacare is because people either don't want or can't afford health insurance.

Obamacare adresses that problem of people not being able to get healthcare, or parasiting on society by not buying health insurance when they can easily afford it and then getting healthcare anyway.

We're even, because nothing of your irrelevant conspiracies makes a lick of sense.

And the "whole deal" with Obamacare is cost. Cost to individuals who are being forced to purchase something (that millions couldn't afford in the first place) and cost to those in the field as well as the industry for compliance.

The IRS laid out rules showing a "bronze" plan for a family at $20k/year, or a $200 fine per month. Please enlighten us all on how this helps people, bearing in mind massive unemployment? Tens of millions are on Food Stamps or living paycheck to paycheck. How in the hell do people get behind this? Where is the money coming from when people start getting penalized for not buying expensive insurance plans?

AgedGrunt:

The IRS laid out rules showing a "bronze" plan for a family at $20k/year, or a $200 fine per month. Please enlighten us all on how this helps people, bearing in mind massive unemployment? Tens of millions are on Food Stamps or living paycheck to paycheck. How in the hell do people get behind this? Where is the money coming from when people start getting penalized for not buying expensive insurance plans?

The money has to come from the government. Since the people won't be just left to die when they get critical, but couldn't get treatment before that as they had no insurance, the bill is a lot higher, and only the government is left to pick it up.

So in other words this isn't "irresponsible spending by the government" as much as it is "spending the government is forced into because the insurance sharks cornered the healthcare market - and now everyone has to pick up the tab so that those sharks can keep reaping their profits."

Or in other words, lack of foresight came to bite your healthcare system in the back, and the government has two choices; either bail it out or look at even worse potential problems. Obamacare isn't a perfect system, but it's a system designed to avoid the collapse of healthcare in your country, which came years too late, so there'll be some growing pains, and you only have yourselves to thank for that.

Oh, and it's nice to see you suddenly care about people living on food stapms, not long enough you were like "Hah! Just because they can't afford insurance, I don't wanna be paying for them, no sir!" And now you suddenly care that they migh fall on harder times. How heartwarming, this is what philantropy is all about, huh.

Vegosiux:
The money has to come from the government. Since the people won't be just left to die when they get critical, but couldn't get treatment before that as they had no insurance, the bill is a lot higher, and only the government is left to pick it up.

The government doesn't make money, it collects (or prints). You are essentially saying the people have to pay for it themselves. That's exactly why it's wrong to force everyone onto insurance plans. For the millions of people that cannot afford it, someone else will need to pick up the bill. Not exactly a fair public fund if the burden would be placed upon people who have money (many whom may not use the system as much) paying for people with less money (generally in worse health, who would tend to use it more).

And once again if you are going to blame these "sharks" for ruining the market, where was the government to step in and try to solve it? And don't argue that they couldn't do it because these industries are "too powerful". They're too powerful because corporations run the damn government. They opened the door to lobbyists and special interests and get votes and kick-backs. That's the very definition of irresponsibility.

Vegosiux:
Oh, and it's nice to see you suddenly care about people living on food stapms, not long enough you were like "Hah! Just because they can't afford insurance, I don't wanna be paying for them, no sir!" And now you suddenly care that they migh fall on harder times. How heartwarming, this is what philantropy is all about, huh.

Ad hominem. Take that somewhere else.

AgedGrunt:

And once again if you are going to blame these "sharks" for ruining the market, where was the government to step in and try to solve it? And don't argue that they couldn't do it because these industries are "too powerful". They're too powerful because corporations run the damn government. They opened the door to lobbyists and special interests and get votes and kick-backs. That's the very definition of irresponsibility.

Yeah, I'm sure kicking the lobbyists out and stepping in to regulate the insurance market to undo the damage that was already done would have gone down so well with the small government free market conservative folks. I'm sorry, but the moment the government did that, I'm so certain we'd be hearing an outcry of "socialism" and "they're spending mah money on that" from the aforementioned folks I'd wager and arm and a leg on it.

The corporations don't control the government, they control the people, with this neat little thing called "the American Dream".

It's becoming clear that arguments against socialized healthcare (or socialism in general), as well as attempts to argue for government roles are just ending with attacks against all right-wing affinities and principles.

As well the OP doesn't even appear to care for this logical argument malarky anymore and doesn't reply, so, I for one am done dealing with this exercise until something of value is added.

Karma168:

1. American spends double the %GDP that Britain does and doesn't cover everyone while the NHS does.[1]

Maybe the UK is just better at denying people healthcare in an underhand manner?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9858118/Stafford-scandal-Lets-face-the-truth-about-our-uncaring-selfish-and-cruel-NHS.html

[1] In case you want to argue America is bigger; US GDP is ~6-7X larger than the UK while population is only ~5X

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked