I think we need to ask ourselves if there's really a problem laughing at Americans who die from lack of medical care.
"Medicine" in America
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Speaking as an autistic adult, I find your use of the term "non-mentally handicapped" insulting. Not just for how ableist it is, but because even IF that prejudice were reasonable (which it's not), even THEN it STILL is self-evident to anyone and everyone that it makes SENSE to treat healthcare like firefighting, a police force, or like another thing: Ever heard of the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE? You know, the people who issue tornado watches and warnings? That's done by the government, yet I don't hear any of those people living in bible-belt trailer-parks complaining about that being "communism"!Gennadios said:
The National Weather Service costs under a billion dollars, universal healthcare will cost....well lets just say significantly more. Probably comparable to our military budgetStevieC said:
Also, you are not winning any points by bringing up the police force as there are many areas in which you are completely on your own if you are in trouble, and many of them are experiencing budget cuts.
While a universal healthcare system will cost the state more it will probably cost America less. The great thing about a universal healthcare system is that govt tends to also police pricing abuses. That's why France manages to have a healthcare which costs half per capita than the US while being much cheaper, having more beds per inhabitants and more physicians per inhabitants. It's basically superior on every single aspect.Ryotknife said:
Shit. Well, I can imagine it like this, the government would force hospitals, doctors etc, to either take the smaller paycheck, or get nothing at all. I can imagine that the bare minimum cost to continue operating (With current standards) is far less than what we actually pay, (including a reasonable paycheck).cthulhuspawn82 said:
Yea, I bet there will be some "I can no longer afford my allotted three cars a month! I've had to reduce to only one brand new Mercedes a month!" protest, but I think that's worth it.
Edit: Also cut our retarded overarmed and armored military. Seriously, we're not in any major wars we do not need 389 fully functional aircraft carriers, it's such a fucking waste.
First of all, I should let you all know I'm not interested in debating, so I don't intend to respond to any replies. I just feel that the libertarian position on the issue has not been properly represented in this thread. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your existing beliefs are infallible. If I present information or ideas you've never heard of or seen explained well, research it properly. Whether you find you agree with me or not, you owe that much to yourself.
Libertarianism in America, as you likely know it from TV, is a philosophy of "every man for himself." That's totally wrong. Real libertarian philosophy is based on the non-aggression principle. It is an opposition to coercion and the use of force, except for defensive purposes. That includes coercion by government when it attempts to do things that would be unacceptable for private citizens to do, such as taking someone else's money without consent (taxation) and attacking or imprisoning those who have not harmed others.
It is the belief of libertarians that the free market, when self-regulated by its active participants, provides better solutions to problems than any government could hope to achieve. In the case of health care, we have observed how government intervention has caused prices to increase and the quality of services to decrease at every stage.
In the years before Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, poor people were admitted to hospitals and granted care across the US at the same rate as they are now. However, back then, it was accepted and understood that not everyone was capable of paying for their care. You know what doctors did about it back then? They did it for free.
After adjusting for inflation, prices for health care services were still only a fraction of what they are now. Government intervention and the rise of government-sponsored health insurance (HMOs are the best example) caused a systemic increase in costs because it complicated the system and added a lot of new bureaucrats to the mix who all had to be paid for every person's health care. Insurance companies are also prohibited from selling their products across state lines, which keeps the biggest (and most well-connected) providers from being undercut by more efficient competitors.
On top of that, government deals with pharmaceutical companies stifle competition and allow those businesses to run roughshod over their customers, putting unsafe products on the market at exorbitant prices, which often cause side effects that require even more expensive drugs to suppress.
There are a lot more instances of government corruption and collusion with private enterprise in the health care industry for mutual gain that you should be aware of, but I'll just start to wrap up now. If I got your attention, hopefully you'll do some more reading on your own.
Governments are not impartial entities with the well-being of all their subjects at heart. They are composed of individuals, and those individuals, by the very nature of all those who seek power over others, are easily corruptible. Such people work for their own interests, and that generally boils down to solidifying, consolidating, and/or expanding their power.
Conversely, the people actually involved in the medical industry care about their patients. Very few doctors would want to let a patient go untreated, and if it were in their power to help poor people, they would. The problem is the layers of bureaucracy that stand between those in need and the charitable souls who want nothing more than to provide for those needs.
As a libertarian, I believe people want to be good, and if given the chance, most of us would be.
Libertarianism in America, as you likely know it from TV, is a philosophy of "every man for himself." That's totally wrong. Real libertarian philosophy is based on the non-aggression principle. It is an opposition to coercion and the use of force, except for defensive purposes. That includes coercion by government when it attempts to do things that would be unacceptable for private citizens to do, such as taking someone else's money without consent (taxation) and attacking or imprisoning those who have not harmed others.
It is the belief of libertarians that the free market, when self-regulated by its active participants, provides better solutions to problems than any government could hope to achieve. In the case of health care, we have observed how government intervention has caused prices to increase and the quality of services to decrease at every stage.
In the years before Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, poor people were admitted to hospitals and granted care across the US at the same rate as they are now. However, back then, it was accepted and understood that not everyone was capable of paying for their care. You know what doctors did about it back then? They did it for free.
After adjusting for inflation, prices for health care services were still only a fraction of what they are now. Government intervention and the rise of government-sponsored health insurance (HMOs are the best example) caused a systemic increase in costs because it complicated the system and added a lot of new bureaucrats to the mix who all had to be paid for every person's health care. Insurance companies are also prohibited from selling their products across state lines, which keeps the biggest (and most well-connected) providers from being undercut by more efficient competitors.
On top of that, government deals with pharmaceutical companies stifle competition and allow those businesses to run roughshod over their customers, putting unsafe products on the market at exorbitant prices, which often cause side effects that require even more expensive drugs to suppress.
There are a lot more instances of government corruption and collusion with private enterprise in the health care industry for mutual gain that you should be aware of, but I'll just start to wrap up now. If I got your attention, hopefully you'll do some more reading on your own.
Governments are not impartial entities with the well-being of all their subjects at heart. They are composed of individuals, and those individuals, by the very nature of all those who seek power over others, are easily corruptible. Such people work for their own interests, and that generally boils down to solidifying, consolidating, and/or expanding their power.
Conversely, the people actually involved in the medical industry care about their patients. Very few doctors would want to let a patient go untreated, and if it were in their power to help poor people, they would. The problem is the layers of bureaucracy that stand between those in need and the charitable souls who want nothing more than to provide for those needs.
As a libertarian, I believe people want to be good, and if given the chance, most of us would be.
Medicine in America: The conversion of middle class to impoverished by way of unforeseen medical complications. Didn't budget for $3,000,000 ($300,000 after insurance, if you have it) excessively-rare-cancer treatment? How stupid can you get? You're working three jobs to pay for medical bills after your appendix exploded? Well, maybe if you weren't so lazy you could get a job to pay that off.
I'd love to see higher taxes in exchange for much-needed services regulated by the government (the free market won't fix this either, since I can't actually shop around for the best ambulance/hospital deal if I'm unconscious and have less than 5 minutes before medical treatment won't be useful anymore), but the US government is actually so horribly designed that I doubt I'll ever get any say on this issue (for the bored at work, I highly recommend CGPGrey's YouTube channel on just how screwed you may be if you prefer non democrat/republican policies) without billions of dollars to throw around.
I'd love to see higher taxes in exchange for much-needed services regulated by the government (the free market won't fix this either, since I can't actually shop around for the best ambulance/hospital deal if I'm unconscious and have less than 5 minutes before medical treatment won't be useful anymore), but the US government is actually so horribly designed that I doubt I'll ever get any say on this issue (for the bored at work, I highly recommend CGPGrey's YouTube channel on just how screwed you may be if you prefer non democrat/republican policies) without billions of dollars to throw around.
That's one of the worst things you can say when entering a discussion. Because it implies you consider yourself above criticism.Verigan said:
And, you on the other hand, just preemptively telling you this, do not confuse disagreement for "not understanding". I am also going to quote this specific statement if you imply someone who disagreed with you "isn't getting it".
(assuming you respond at all, of course)
Diction does not an argument make. You might have worded this in a low-profile manner, but all I can ask you is still, how do you pay for the infrastructure you use to make your daily fortune? Have you built it yourself? No? Are you paying the toll every day you use a road? No? Well, how do you expect it to not be full of potholes in a few weeks? Taxes.
If you get your stuff stolen, do you expect the law enforcement to do something about it, at least catch the guy who did it? Why, are you paying them out of your own pocket? No? How can they function if you're not? Taxes.
Taxes are not theft. Taxes exist to pay for things you take for granted. Maybe if you stopped taking the benefits of living in a civilized society for granted, you'd realize that they need to be paid for. You'd also realize that you took full advantage of them to get where you are now, so, if, as a libertarian, you're a "good human being" or at least want to be one, you'd feel obliged by honor to give something back, if only so that others in your immediate society have the same opportunities you have.
A belief that has never been shown to work so far. A pipe dream, conjured up by those who do not even realize what the society is giving them. Unless you can show me how it actually works in practice, where it's worked, etc.
I mean, and this will be a stupid analogy, we could all argue the world would be a better place if everyone sacrificed their firstborn to Quetzalcoatl, but unless some society actually tries that, we can't really argue whether or not it actually does work, now can we.
We have? I beg to differ. We're doing quite well over here with public healthcare. Oh sure, we're not America, but is America too proud and haughty to maybe try to learn some tricks from others? Because some Americans sure are acting that way.
So, who paid their hours and resources invested then? I believe it was the
Or are you arguing that there are doctors who don't expect to get paid for the work they do? Because if so, again, citation needed.
[citation needed]
How so? If they can't sell over the state lines, that means they have free reign if their own state, as their competitors, also being insurance companies, can't sell over the state line either.
[citation needed]
*sigh* [citation needed]
You're just being rude and presumptuous now. Quit talking as if you're speaking ex cathedra.
[citation needed]
*groan*
[citation] bloody [needed]
Except when they're employed by the government. because apparently, then they're the kind that seeks power over others and easily corruptible. And well. Last time I checked the government wasn't some otherworldly force, some vague, amorphous "other". It was a very human thing. And if people want to be good, the government couldn't be evil, seeing as who it's created by.
You know, I'm starting to understand why you told people you're not intending to respond to any replies. I know I don't buy a word of this post. If you want me to consider this seriously, give me something to go on. Give me something that shows you might have a point. That's not my homework, that's your homework.
If you want to show that libertarianism works, then show me where libertarianism was tried and resulted in a healthy society. And I'm going to be honest with you - I'm setting you up here. Because, there's another ideology of which it is spoken that "it's never been tried in a situation where it could have worked". And I will waste no time to put you face to face with the similarities if you give me a chance to.
You know what the real irony is? Libertarianism and the final stage of Marxist Communism are essentially the same thing: The complete dissolution of the state and self-regulation of everything. The only real difference between them, from a philosophical standpoint, is that Libertarianism retains the concept of ownership.Vegosiux said:
Now, with that said, the guy you quoted isn't entirely wrong. It's just that those portions were/are obscured by the things that were. Primarily, I'm referring to this part:
The good ones want to be, and they generally make admirable efforts in that direction, but at the end of the day, governments in the modern era are, as a general rule, composed of a specific type of person. Specifically, the type of person who actively seeks power over others. The reasons vary, but at the end of the day, you simply cannot be a person of significance in any modern first world government without actively attempting to expand your influence.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does lead to a tendency of the government to overstep reasonable bounds (see: PRISM). Everything the government does should be scrutinized. Not dismissed, not without good reason at least, but definitely closely scrutinized in order to keep them honest.
And as a final point, I will address the state bounds thing and why it's an issue. If insurance companies are only allowed to cover people in their home state, then any individual's choices are drastically limited. For example, let's say we have two companies, A in Georgia and B in California. When someone living in California wants insurance, he looks at the available list and sees that the only available company is B. That means B has no competition whatsoever and can charge whatever they want, treat their customers however they want, and generally just be a shitty company and suffer minimal consequences because there's no other choices.
However, if that restriction is removed, that same person would then have two choices, and if B started charging too much or being unreasonable, or whatever, they could switch to A.
In essence, removing that restriction would open the market and widen the competition, forcing the various companies to actually be competitive, which can only be a good thing for the end customer.
You guys are writing each response out like it's the fault of the doctors and physicians that health care is so expensive in America. It isn't. Doctors and health workers are only getting the money from your copay, a flat rate which takes up a section of the bill. General medical cost and a vocal majority demanding the government to stay out of health care is the issue, don't blame the people who are saving lives.
The taxes I pay fund the police and fire services too, luckily I haven't had need of them so far but that doesn't mean I want them privatized, that would be utterly moronic. Why should the health service be any different?
I don't see the problem with a portion of my taxes helping to keep everyone safe and healthy. In fact I'd say it's one of the better things the money is spent on in this country.
I don't see the problem with a portion of my taxes helping to keep everyone safe and healthy. In fact I'd say it's one of the better things the money is spent on in this country.
Dude, where's your Medicaid? Like half of many of state's budgets* goes to Medicaid, and then the Fed matches that amount. Means testing is an excellent principle, but I guess (I'm under Tricare Prime) it's grossly misapplied when it comes to ambulatory care.
*Which is why my side of the aisle wants to go for block grants; Sure there's nothing wrong with unified nation-wide standards, but when local governments have as much responsibility as they do (intrastate roads, police & other emergency responders, school all funded @ state level) eating 1/2 of all state tax revenue means something is very very wrong with the current national standard.
Edit: my thought has been to make all physicians Reservists with the freedom to be conscientious objectors; have the fed pay a housing allowance and keep them all on the Army pay schedule with costs shared between hospital trustees and the national treasury for the rest of their salary.
*Which is why my side of the aisle wants to go for block grants; Sure there's nothing wrong with unified nation-wide standards, but when local governments have as much responsibility as they do (intrastate roads, police & other emergency responders, school all funded @ state level) eating 1/2 of all state tax revenue means something is very very wrong with the current national standard.
Edit: my thought has been to make all physicians Reservists with the freedom to be conscientious objectors; have the fed pay a housing allowance and keep them all on the Army pay schedule with costs shared between hospital trustees and the national treasury for the rest of their salary.
Medicine in america has become the most vile and ruthless industry in the country. You can literally pass out an wake up to "hey, we just saved your live. You're 700,000 dollars in debt. You're welcome." and that isn't even an exaggeration.
The medical industry and insurance companies are looking to turn as big of a profit as they can off of people who have no choice but to suffer or die without them. That's the root of all of it.
I would say this is extremely true, but I would disagree that it's because americans are "sue happy." If a doctor preforms a surgery on you that goes wrong and you need another surgery as a result, it's not like returning a defective microwave where they'll just say "oh we did it wrong, we'll fix it for free." You have to pay for another surgery. There's a 90% chance you would have to sue to even afford it, and if your life literally hangs on the balance, of course you're going to sue. You have to. It's a by product of the climate, which does in turn propagate it, but it's not what started it.Abomination said:
The medical industry and insurance companies are looking to turn as big of a profit as they can off of people who have no choice but to suffer or die without them. That's the root of all of it.
This reminds me a lot of the 2007 documentary "Sicko" by Michael Moore which criticizes the American healthcare system.
You can find a nice audio review of it here: http://spill.hollywood.com/Audio/AudioPost.aspx?audioId=367
It's slanted to his left opinion, but since this is a non-partisan issue, it shouldn't matter much.
You can find a nice audio review of it here: http://spill.hollywood.com/Audio/AudioPost.aspx?audioId=367
It's slanted to his left opinion, but since this is a non-partisan issue, it shouldn't matter much.
Sorry, I was just trying to get the snowball rolling and show how the problem just compounds upon itself. Essentially you could start anywhere in what I said and end up back there again with cause and effect.Guitarmasterx7 said:
The American health system, from an economic perspective, is a perpetual inflation machine - especially with the insurance. Healthcare is expensive, so everyone needs to get insurance, but because healthcare is expensive the insurance premiums become more expensive, because the healthcare has insurance doctors are happy to charge incredible prices because they know the insurance will have to pay and can afford to pay, this costs the insurance companies more, which pushes up insurance premiums.
How do you break the cycle? Unfortunately the entire medical system needs a complete overhaul and this will result in the losses of many jobs to facilitate. Which means people won't vote in a party that will do it, which means it will not happen, which means it'll only get worse via half-measures.
I'm sorry to hear about your rough day.Paragon Fury said:
I'm with you on the whole 'marketing' thing when you're in the ambulance. I've never heard of anything like that. It's insanely stupid on it's face. No one expects to be in ambulances all year. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As far as why things are the way they are in Health Care, it's simple economics.
Government-subsidized health care (the US has Medicare and Medicaid - I have no idea why the world seems to think we don't have government-funded systems.) increases demand by making things cheaper for those who have insurance (public or private). The increased demand jacks prices up.
If you ran a store selling $1 doughnut, and someone comes along and says "I'll pay 75 cents of every doughnut.", what's going to happen? People are going to want more doughnuts - they'll likely clean you out. Now, do you work 8 more hours the next day to supply all the doughnuts people want? No - you raise the price of doughnuts. Then someone comes along who doesn't have the 75 cent markup and sees you're selling donuts for $3. He says "$3 for a doughnut is insane."
It is the exact same thing that has happened to college loans.
Then, throw in insane lawsuits, massive federal and state government red tape, and you have the current broken US health care system.
And if you think a hyper-partisan 2000+ page bill rammed through Congress against the will of the American people by the slimmest of margins will *fix* it.....
Dang. I just can't let this one go. It's just too darned aggressive to not get a bit of a response. Before I start poking at individual quotes, I first want to say that I'm not going to offer citations on anything. There are two reasons for this. First, it is the nature of such disputes that anything I post in support of my positions would be summarily ignored on the grounds that it's biased toward my perspective. I've been through that song and dance too many times, so I'm going to present logic as I perceive it.
The second reason is that if someone finds my claims interesting, they can seek out that information on their own, making it far more meaningful than some hearsay spouted by some dude on a forum.
I can tell you this much, and be aware that I only speak for my own hometown. Where I live, the roads are a disaster. Taxes are high. Businesses are fleeing the city to set up in outlying areas where their tax liability is lower. Potholes are a major problem. And here's the part that shoots a gaping hole (in my own mind, obviously, as you or others may choose to disregard this claim, as I am offering nothing but personal observation as evidence) in your assertion that government is the thin line holding us back from collapsing into pothole-induced anarchy: the budget for the departments which manage our roads (at both the local and state level) continues to climb year after year. They spend every penny in their budget, often on frivolous things (because the budget would decrease for the following year if they didn't spend it all) and the roads often get worse because of their efforts.
I'm pretty sure it would be considered theft if a bank teller refused to give me a portion of my money when I cash a check. Does it become something different if enough people (let's say 51% of the nation's population) want to take that money? Does it become legitimate if someone with a specific job title does the deed?
Use all the colorful and happy phrases you like, but property taken without consent is stolen, regardless of who's doing the stealing.
I believe that about covers it. I'll probably look into this thread one more time in another day or so. If you post something worth addressing, I promise I'll make time for it.
The second reason is that if someone finds my claims interesting, they can seek out that information on their own, making it far more meaningful than some hearsay spouted by some dude on a forum.
Not at all. I do not deal in doublespeak. I meant what I said. I'm not looking to 'educate' people, and I have no interest in participating beyond merely putting the perspective of the ideology I ascribe to in better context.Vegosiux said:
Rather than play this game, let me turn it around and ask a question I find far more relevant. Have you ever given any consideration to how the same ends might be achieved without government coercion?
I can tell you this much, and be aware that I only speak for my own hometown. Where I live, the roads are a disaster. Taxes are high. Businesses are fleeing the city to set up in outlying areas where their tax liability is lower. Potholes are a major problem. And here's the part that shoots a gaping hole (in my own mind, obviously, as you or others may choose to disregard this claim, as I am offering nothing but personal observation as evidence) in your assertion that government is the thin line holding us back from collapsing into pothole-induced anarchy: the budget for the departments which manage our roads (at both the local and state level) continues to climb year after year. They spend every penny in their budget, often on frivolous things (because the budget would decrease for the following year if they didn't spend it all) and the roads often get worse because of their efforts.
Oh, I love this question. The straight answer is no. I do not expect the cops to do anything about it, nor catch the person(s) responsible. I have been robbed on no less than three occasions since 2000. In every instance, cops were called. In every instance, nothing was ever recovered, and no arrests were made. What they are good at, however, is writing traffic tickets and setting up checkpoints which allow them to write even more tickets. In my experiences, they have amounted to nothing more than tax collectors. Since the last incident, I have taken measures to ensure the safety of my family and property, and I've found that the combination of firearms and a large dog provide much greater safety than keeping 911 on speed dial.
Theft is defined as taking someone's property without their consent. I do not consent to taxation. I have never consented to it in my life. I don't want the government to take taxes from my paychecks, but they do it anyway, and I'm not given a choice in the matter. How is this not theft?
I'm pretty sure it would be considered theft if a bank teller refused to give me a portion of my money when I cash a check. Does it become something different if enough people (let's say 51% of the nation's population) want to take that money? Does it become legitimate if someone with a specific job title does the deed?
Use all the colorful and happy phrases you like, but property taken without consent is stolen, regardless of who's doing the stealing.
Nope. I can't show you where it has worked in practice because it has never been implemented fully. But perhaps you know better? If so, please point out a single society, in the entire history of the world, which has been built upon the foundation of non-aggression, property rights, and freedom to do as you wish, provided you do no harm to others. Then tell me how that society failed.
The 'we' I spoke of is libertarians. I could comment on the rest of that, but that would get me started on a long-winded tirade about nationalism vs patriotism (which I suspect might lead us to some common ground) and I think this is going to be quite long enough already.
Have you truly never heard of charity? It's pretty great. You should look into it sometime.
I'm pretty sure that you already know I wasn't talking about people employed by the government, but those in positions of actual political power. Taking that into account, your argument is a strawman, and dismissed as such.
Again, not trying to prove anything to anyone here. I want to get people interested in considering the ideas, and that means they need to look into it on their own. You clearly are entirely opposed to the very concept of libertarianism, and do not seem to want others to even give it a moment's consideration. I can only describe your behavior as anti-intellectual.
By all means, go for it. However, keep in mind that the basis of my arguments is in the non-aggression principle. That's the keystone, and without it being involved in some way, any example you might bring up is automatically invalidated.
I believe that about covers it. I'll probably look into this thread one more time in another day or so. If you post something worth addressing, I promise I'll make time for it.