I think we need to ask ourselves if there's really a problem laughing at Americans who die from lack of medical care.
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:America had 40 years of spindoctoring to purge that mindset out of the public. The non-mentally handicapped way of looking at Healthcare would be seeing it as a fire department or a police force, a public enterprise for the greater good.
Nowadays, public healthcare is just seen as communism and the people that hate the concept are the ones that stand to benefit from it the most.
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: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:America had 40 years of spindoctoring to purge that mindset out of the public. The non-mentally handicapped way of looking at Healthcare would be seeing it as a fire department or a police force, a public enterprise for the greater good.
Nowadays, public healthcare is just seen as communism and the people that hate the concept are the ones that stand to benefit from it the most.
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:The National Weather Service costs under a billion dollars, universal healthcare will cost....well lets just say significantly more. Probably comparable to our military budget
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.
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:The relevant question is this, why don't you pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket. You don't because you cant afford it. In America at least, the cost of healthcare is so high that nobody can afford to pay it. Nobody can afford to spend $2000 to sleep in a hospital bed for one night.shootthebandit said:Or the government step in and pay everyones healthcare with tax payers money. Sure you pay more tax but you know that when you go to hospital you dont have to pay a penny to get healthcarecthulhuspawn82 said:So the problem isn't insurance companies a lack of a health care system. The problem is that those guys in the Ambulance, the doctors that treated you, and the hospital administrators, are all a bunch of greedy assholes. If the government wants to help us it should bring the hammer down on all the doctors and Ambulance drivers. Force them to do their job for a set price or go out of business.
This is why universal healthcare wont work, at least for America. How is the government supposed to use our money to pay for something we cant afford? If their isn't enough money in our pockets to pay the bill then how can the government, which gets all of its money from our pockets, afford to pay the bill?
That's one of the worst things you can say when entering a discussion. Because it implies you consider yourself above criticism.Verigan said: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.
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".I just feel that the libertarian position on the issue has not been properly represented in this thread. Just 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
So, who paid their hours and resources invested then? I believe it was theIn 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.
[citation needed]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.
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.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.
[citation needed]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.
*sigh* [citation needed]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.
You're just being rude and presumptuous now. Quit talking as if you're speaking ex cathedra.If I got your attention, hopefully you'll do some more reading on your own.
[citation needed]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.
*groan*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.
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.As a libertarian, I believe people want to be good, and if given the chance, most of us would be.
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: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.
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.Governments are not impartial entities with the well-being of all their subjects at heart.
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:There is no "fix" for the healthcare system in the United States. It's too expensive because of the sue-happy nature of the country which can result in malpractice lawsuits of incredible proportions. This requires doctors and hospitals to take out professional liability insurance which, due to the aforementioned sue-happy climate is VERY expensive.
Now that pushes the price of medicine up to a degree that the average Joe can not afford it should they fall ill. The issue is compounded due to the shit labour laws and receiving pay while incapable of work due to illness means you once again can not afford the medical treatment... so you have to take insurance.
The hospitals now realize that almost everyone has insurance... which means they can push their own prices up because insurance companies can afford to pay! This in turn pushes the insurance premiums up making them also near impossible to afford. What other insurance premiums are hit? The professional liability cover!
Congratulations, you've created a system that feeds on itself, everyone chasing each other for money and zero government legislation to ensure such things do not happen.
Who wins? Doctors, lawyers, accountants, banks and insurance companies.
Who loses? Sick people.
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: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.
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'm sorry to hear about your rough day.Paragon Fury said:So I've learned two things today:
1: I suck at this "being an adult". Leave for a haircut this morning. 5 hours, a trip to the hospital and 6 stitches later, still no haircut.
2: "Medicine" must be code for "profiteering racket". Because in the ambulance on my way to the hospital, the technician is offering me a paid yearly ambulance subscription service so I don't have to pay to use the ambulance if I need it.
I'll give that a moment to sink in. I'm sitting here with some my meat hanging out - covered, but still not where it should be (I look a bit like uncooked chicken on the inside apparently) - and they're trying to sell me something. I know I'm going to have to pay out the ass for the Emergency Room, the Doctor, the Stitches and the Care........and now she is reminding that the very needed trip to the hospital isn't even free.
If we're not even getting people to the hospital without charging them............
We shall have none of this logical nonsense here!Daystar Clarion said:If many Americans weren't so damn gung ho about paying less taxes, then it wouldn't be an issue.
It's 2013 and they still have no universal healthcare. It boggles the mind that a first world country lacks such a system.
Here's a thought.
You know that obscenely huge military they have? You know, the big one.
Take like 5% of that budget, and there's your universal healthcare. No extra taxes, just the money redistributed elsewhere.
You should probably look after the people in your own country before making something to kill the populace of another.
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:That's one of the worst things you can say when entering a discussion. Because it implies you consider yourself above criticism.
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?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.
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.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.
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?Taxes are not theft.
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.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.
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.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.
Have you truly never heard of charity? It's pretty great. You should look into it sometime.So, who paid their hours and resources invested then? I believe it was theconclave of soul eaters from the sixth dimensiongovernment. But the government doesn't function on solar power, thus, taxes.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.