Socialised Healthcare

[Patashu]

the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture
2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Patashu

the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture

NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it

Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.

3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.

[Patashu]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

who's going to fund it then?

Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages? Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either, but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society; just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)

Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."

haha where have I suggested making everyone completely equal? all I'm advocating is that the system doesn't **** someone over as soon as they get too sick to work even though they could get better and be just as productive as before with a little help from the rest of us. we are not giving them money, we're just not sucking them dry for things beyond their control that could strike at any moment.
whether and why it is the case that some people have to be obscenely ultra rich and others have to be obscenely ultra poor is something that would be interesting to discuss but is outside the scope of this debate

This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.

so what, you hate helping others? humans are, you know, social creatures who naturally bond together in groups.
I love how you put 'the american way' in italics like some kind of reverent indisputable jingoistic phrase. what does that even mean? is it the american way to **** over your neighbours when they get weak and sick? or wouldn't you rather lend a helping hand?
also I'm pretty sure I said this earlier but cuba's life expectancy is the same as america's despite spending 5% per annum of the amount america does on healthcare, so I'd say they're doing p. OK given the circumstances

You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.

in america, half of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and most of these people had health insurance. how many times would you like me to say this?

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.

it worked in canada, the UK, france, cuba, etc etc etc. basically all the industrialized countries except America implement some form of universal healthcare, and most of them are doing better than America in various metrics of health, i.e. life expectancy (no, america's life expectancy is not number one in the world)

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through. You WILL die. You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped. Otherwise you'll likely die from an accident. Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live. (The only other situation of death is from war or murder: neither are likely.) And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

I never said private sector couldn't do roads, you did. I'm saying it's a bad idea for the private sector to do roads. I'm also claiming it's a bad idea for the private sector to give healthcare. I'm claiming that public sector can do roads AND healthcare better than the private sector. My analogy was too much of a stretch...I should have set it aside and said what patashu's been saying all along, because it was an elaborate way of saying things are terribly inefficient with private healthcare, and that government run healthcare would take away those inefficiencies. The very fact that you say private companies can do INSURANCE and not healthcare means that a huge inefficiency will go away.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL.

Just to be a pain, I've got a solution for private sector road building companies in terms of payment. Have every car registered in the US have a GPS system which also records where the car has driven. Every month or week or whatever, it would be mandatory to send that info somehow. Make it as easy as taking out your car's USB key and plugging it into any computer and upload the info to a website. The website would have to a separate company for sure, but that wouldn't be a problem. Maybe you could even just have the data always send the info wirelessly from the car. Whatever road or highway you've driven on, you have to pay that company's rate. Pretty easy, not a lot of overhead, totally doable.
On another note, there's no reason that a private company couldn't do the mapping for any road network. Multiple, private companies can decide to build roads wherever they want provided where they want them built meets whatever good criteria they need to meet for environmental reasons or what have you. If they incorporate a payment system as I said above, it seems like the main issue with private road building has been resolved.
Just because private companies haven't done a good job at making roads, and just because you can't perceive a way for them to do it, it doesn't mean they can't. I'm sure if suddenly the department of transportation got dissolved, we'd have private companies take a step in and do a fine job of making roads with new, innovative ways of doing things. For godsakes, if you think the free market is so uber and taxes are so terrible, don't give up on non-government so easily. Use your head.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Your own counterargument follows....

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model.

I gather that you think it's better that you personally don't have to pay for anything and not get anything in terms of health coverage, and to have people essentially steal money from sick people who thought they wouldn't have to pay anything, and for you to not be able to ever get treatment for diseases or accidents even though we totally have the technology because our infrastructure makes them too expensive, than for you to have to pay a couple hundred dollars a year so that everyone can get equal access healthcare? And you talk about people who are drains on society...seems like you're refusing to help it on principal.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

Nice of you to enlighten me. Really, discussion where I'm told I'm wrong with nothing else beyond that it isn't much of a discussion. (I should really let this point slide.)

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism. It must be nice to have an 'out' in your pocket against any virtually all complaints about something that exists in a free market economy. (The out being that because clearly that's how things are supposed to work, and if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.)

Originally Posted by Afrobean

and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

Well, it'd DEFINITELY be a waste of money for the government to be funding social programs for the people who don't need them. I think not seeing people living and dying on the streets helps the greater good anyways. You really don't want more people sitting on the streets asking you for money, do you?

[eMVy]

Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.

[Patashu]

because this is a fundamental problem with nationalized healthcare?

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by Patashu

the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture
2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

Wow dude you know what you sound like? A preaching socializing communist.. in a way.

First off, people who don't deserve to have their taxes lowered probably shouldn't have their taxes lowered. People who go to college and spend several years to get the perfect dream job with a payroll to compensate DESERVE it. Not some tard working in a Mc Donalds. I completely agree with Afrobean with how much The health insurance actually helps.

I've got a solution

Then go to some forum our talk to your senator about it. It won't work now and not ever, especially in this moment in time. Just to be a pain..

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism. It must be nice to have an 'out' in your pocket against any virtually all complaints about something that exists in a free market economy. (The out being that because clearly that's how things are supposed to work, and if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.)

What an asshole remark to an American View.

I'm sure that if you had a real job in America (Like a teacher, because now educational funds are being cut HORRIBLY) you might think that you shouldn't be taxed more because you do have a real job.

Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.

Barack Obama cut medicaid funds. What a smart, smart man.
And I love how Cavernio and Patashu are totally teaming up on Afro here. So here Afro, I lend you my help. For the assholes who are talking about all of this nonsense about taxes the "rich" (Which is actually counting MIDDLE CLASS NOW) and giving to the poor and (as afro said, unskilled), take a look into the bill and see how your going to be taxed. EVEN if you have a low paying job your still going to be paying the new skyrocketing electrical costs. There's many damn earmarks in this bill (which was the original topic by the way). The cash for clunkers program, the program that Obama released, allows you to trade in a old car for technically a economically efficient car equal to 4500 or less. What he DIDN'T tell you, and what Americans are pissed off at, is that you have to pay a TAX on top of buying it, and you pay it over time.

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through. You WILL die. You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped. Otherwise you'll likely die from an accident. Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live. (The only other situation of death is from war or murder: neither are likely.) And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.

If people weren't so stupid and cutting educational funds, people might know what the hell causes what. Plus Medicaid can provide vaccinations for poor people depending on how bad off they are financially. Your talking about people that live in trailers because they don't want to improve there life. They have no incentive. Lets talk about America as a whole.

who's going to fund it then?

The Government. Because apparently they don't have to be under the same health care.

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages? Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either, but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society; just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)

Costs are going to skyrocket. Maybe this doesn't affect you but to more than half the nation it will. Remember, paying for some bridge or road to be made 200 miles out of your state is abusive spending.


Lets not forget the original argument, which I see many of you have failed to answer in the respected format:

Why hasn't anyone talked about the infamous Democratic Health Care reform bill and the spectacular effects it will have on our daily lives?

Why should my grandfather (who contributed to society for 45 years working as a manager for a Lincoln - Mercury dealership) have to be put under in order to pay for some drug dealer's health care?

Why should my dad, who is a successful businessman, pay taxes AND pay for someone else's health care? I mean, he's already paying for someone else's housing, food, water, and electricity.

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?

I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal. I think the constitution states that every man is born equal. Whether he uses his liberty to benefit his society and himself should be up to him. I understand there are people who are in dire circumstances and are honest and good people. But I should be able to keep my doctor and my check-ups and he should be able to keep his availability and his business. Is it really necessary that we should pay for everyone's health? Especially since our government is trillions of dollars deep in debt?

Finally, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed reform? Why or why not? Is it good or bad for our nation?

I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Thanks for reading my opinions. By the way, I watch Fox News. Don't hate. xP

[With the exception to devonin, whom I respect politically, even DUE to his location, as he has actually replied to the original questions]

[Patashu]

the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty; in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.
think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education. if you already have a home, an education and connections in high places and some desk job that's relatively painless and gives you a huge income, you'll probably never have to fend for your life; anything you want you have the disposable income for already. aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin. how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it? unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

I replied to the original question too btw

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by Patashu

the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty; in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.
think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education. if you already have a home, an education and connections in high places and some desk job that's relatively painless and gives you a huge income, you'll probably never have to fend for your life; anything you want you have the disposable income for already. aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin. how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it? unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

I replied to the original question too btw

First off, if your talking about people who designed technology that made the entire world a better off place (medicine, computer) then yes you deserve the money. If your smart about the economy and the stock and make a lot of money then you deserve it.

THE POOR IS ALSO GOING TO BE TAXED.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

I don't know, ask your senators.

I'm sure all the teachers who voted for Obama are kicking their-selves in the ass. I know my History teacher is.

aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an

Wow I was literally laughing when I read this. Almost every rich person has an unpayable debt or an extremely high debt. think about it.

the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty;

FIRST OFF the minimum wage increased.

And if you think this plan isn't going to tax the poor then maybe you should take a look at Obamas speeches. ELECTRICAL COSTS ARE GOING TO SKYROCKET! This affects everybody! And even the poor are going to have to pay the new healthcare tax...

[Afrobean]

here comes the torrents you commie pigs

Originally Posted by Patashu

who's going to fund it then?

lmao

Who "funds" the current system? THE CUSTOMERS. Customers pay money to the company and that income is what the company uses to pay for medical treatments and pay its employees.

It'd be the EXACT same with it running on a NPO model, except that instead of going above and beyond to reach higher profits for the shareholders, they'd be more interested in ACTUALLY PROVIDING SERVICE.

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages?

Because I wasn't alive when it began and I only relatively recently have been enlightened as to what I feel the purpose of government should be in society. I believe that government should protect our "god-given" rights and nothing more; you evidently feel the government should baby us and take care of those who can't take care of themselves, usually because they are too lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc. Life, liberty, right to own property. That's all I want my government concerned with, along with any necessary societal systems which is cost prohibitive for the private sector (like water). If the government is doing something that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with protecting those things, then I feel they're overstepping their boundaries.

Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either,

The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life).

but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society;

Not just desirable, but necessary for modern society. Can you honestly imagine true anarchy in the modern world thanks to lack of a legal system?

just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)

Ok, let me repeat myself AGAIN.

The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO.

haha where have I suggested making everyone completely equal? all I'm advocating is that the system doesn't **** someone over as soon as they get too sick to work even though they could get better and be just as productive as before with a little help from the rest of us.

And you want to achieve this by forced redistribution of wealth. Now, of course, you're not advocating full redistribution (which would be communism), but you are advocating a free-money idea here, taking money from those with a lot and giving it to those who haven't earned it.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each...s_contribution
particularly this portion:
"Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his Constitution. He writes that 'The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' It is especially noteworthy that he says the principle of socialism and not full communism."

we are not giving them money,

When there is a product/service one person cannot afford and you take money from another person in order to give the product/service to the first person for "free", what is the difference?

we're just not sucking them dry for things beyond their control that could strike at any moment.

No, it wouldn't be putting millionaires into the poorhouse, but I say even a single cent is wrong.

whether and why it is the case that some people have to be obscenely ultra rich and others have to be obscenely ultra poor is something that would be interesting to discuss but is outside the scope of this debate

This topic is under the topic of "Socialism". I think discussing the nature of Capitalism and Communism is entirely appropriate, at least as far as they relate to the concept of Socialism and why it may be desirable or unwanted.

so what, you hate helping others? humans are, you know, social creatures who naturally bond together in groups.

I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house.

I love how you put 'the american way' in italics like some kind of reverent indisputable jingoistic phrase. what does that even mean? is it the american way to **** over your neighbours when they get weak and sick? or wouldn't you rather lend a helping hand?

No, I was just referring to the fact that it is WRONG of you to think we are all equal or that we are all entitled to certain things. The only thing we are entitled to is our rights to life, liberty and ownership of property, and a myriad of other related rights in the Bill of Rights.

also I'm pretty sure I said this earlier but cuba's life expectancy is the same as america's despite spending 5% per annum of the amount america does on healthcare, so I'd say they're doing p. OK given the circumstances

Oh, I bet their healthcare isn't too bad, but how do you think their life is like? What do you think the average income is? I really like being able to afford a bigass TV and tons of electronics. I doubt I'd be doing very well in a place such as that. Sure, I'd be just as healthy as I am now probably, but my life would be less enjoyable I think.

in america, half of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and most of these people had health insurance. how many times would you like me to say this?

It doesn't matter. The problem is the DENIED NECESSARY CLAIMS that come about because of the FOR PROFIT MODEL. If you tear down the system and rebuild it as NPO, people wouldn't be so easily rejected for necessary medical care.

If you don't mind an analogy, imagine a person has a large wart on the bottom of his foot. It's terrible and quite painful to even walk, but aside from that, his body is working correctly. This problem is akin to the for-profit business model that health insurance runs on. What I am suggesting is akin to talking to a doctor and getting it dug out so that hopefully tissue can regrow there correctly. What you are suggesting is akin to severing both of the man's entire legs to ensure the problem doesn't come back.

it worked in canada, the UK, france, cuba, etc etc etc. basically all the industrialized countries except America implement some form of universal healthcare, and most of them are doing better than America in various metrics of health, i.e. life expectancy (no, america's life expectancy is not number one in the world)

Screw those socialist bastards. Just because it can be functional doesn't mean it's the ideal solution to the problem. Furthermore, we are a LOT different than those countries. In fact, I again point to my statement about the states: if this were something on a state level, I would be a lot more OK with it, and in this case due to the simplification of the process requiring more spread out micromanagement. But the USA as a whole is MUCH larger than any of the countries you named. How can you say "tiny ol' England works fine, big-ass USA must as well!" And seriously, England is all crazy with leftist ****; they're seriously a stone's throw away from full-on Big Brother.

Is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

If so, ****ing move there and leave America to people who actually prefer our economic system to not have ridiculous government tinkering.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through.

I am well aware that something COULD go wrong, but the exact wording was "GUARANTEE". This does not say "it is possible", it says "it is certain", and I'm just telling you, there is no certainty that anything will ever happen in my life where it will be less costly for me to have health insurance than the alternative.

You WILL die.

Yeah, and that's why I'll be glad to have life insurance as soon as I have anyone I care enough about that I'd want to leave them with something when I go.

You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped.

Not necessarily, since I've never had any such affliction as of yet. I'm guessing an accidental death is more likely for me personally. Probably car wreck.

Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live.

And if something terrible like that happens and I survive one of these things, I will scramble to take care of it. I will get help at that time in whatever ways I can, and if it leaves me in financial ruin afterward, that's something I would have to deal with and I'll cross that bridge IF I come to it.

And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.

The only thing like that I really have a chance for is things like hypertension or type2 diabetes, and I'm healthy enough in the meantime that neither of these things really have a shot at affecting me.

Anything else would be totally random out of left field, and again, if something that terrible happens, I'll scramble to take care of it. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I'm also claiming it's a bad idea for the private sector to give healthcare.

Why?

Because of the businesses propensity for denying claims to optimize profits, right? Because that's the ONLY thing wrong with it. Is competition bad? No. Is employing so many people bad? No. It's just the profit drive.

So you advocate CUTTING THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY OFF rather than addressing the actual problem? Hey you know what other industry is doing bad because of shooting themselves in the foot by being too for profit? The auto industry. Why don't we just kill off Ford and GM and Chrysler and all those companies because they're doing a bad job and replace them with a single brand of car manufactured by the government? Screw quality or choice, let's go full-on socialist! And all these banks and lenders and everything in the financial sector. They're doing even worse thanks to bad choices in loans, so why don't we just destroy all of the companies and replace them with a single federal bank and loan system? Screw JPMorgan and all those bastards they employ. Get that **** outta here and replace it with the BIG BAD GOVERNMENTTTTT.

I'm claiming that public sector can do roads AND healthcare better than the private sector.

Please explain to me why forced socialized health care is better for me than an insurance system from a private NPO. Please explain to me why it is better than my idea for ANYONE who isn't poor as hell. I don't care if those people can't afford it; insurance is a luxury, not a necessity.

My analogy was too much of a stretch...I should have set it aside and said what patashu's been saying all along, because it was an elaborate way of saying things are terribly inefficient with private healthcare

My answer of taking away the profit incentive would also fix this issue.

and that government run healthcare would take away those inefficiencies.

And they'd introduce new ones.

The very fact that you say private companies can do INSURANCE and not healthcare means that a huge inefficiency will go away.

...........................

You're foolish to heavily differentiate between the two.

Just to be a pain, I've got a solution for private sector road building companies in terms of payment. Have every car registered in the US have a GPS system which also records where the car has driven.

I'll stop you right there. Big Brother, **** no. Are you retarded?

Pretty easy, not a lot of overhead, totally doable.

And totally government mandated invasion of ****ing privacy.

On another note, there's no reason that a private company couldn't do the mapping for any road network. Multiple, private companies can decide to build roads wherever they want provided where they want them built meets whatever good criteria they need to meet for environmental reasons or what have you.

This would be a legal rights NIGHTMARE. Because they'd be PRIVATE roads, each company would be able to establish their own "laws" on each road. And you'd be lucky to see different companies working together well... look at any industry: competitors RARELY work well together.

Also notice that the road system also falls under the umbrella of "it's not cost effective in the private sector". In fact, I'm pretty sure that the government doesn't even stop people from having private roads: you will often find private roads on large private estates. But it's not a profitable business model to make publically available private road system even aside from the fact that payment would be difficult to obtain LEGALLY.

If they incorporate a payment system as I said above, it seems like the main issue with private road building has been resolved.

Yeah, and if we tear up the Constitution we can all become Communists! Great plan!

Just because private companies haven't done a good job at making roads, and just because you can't perceive a way for them to do it, it doesn't mean they can't.

If they could and they had a reason to, they would.

I'm sure if suddenly the department of transportation got dissolved, we'd have private companies take a step in and do a fine job of making roads with new, innovative ways of doing things.

So... now you're saying the private sector would do this job better than the government? How on Earth can you go from "private sector can't do insurance (even though they currently are just not the best)" to "private sector can magically produce a service where there is no profit or incentive"?

For godsakes, if you think the free market is so uber and taxes are so terrible, don't give up on non-government so easily. Use your head.

There are some things the private sector cannot do but are still necessary in modern society. The private sector has proven it CAN do this, even if it's not ideal. The solution then should be to FIX THE PROBLEM rather than to kill the entire industry.

Are you familiar with the concepts of cause and effect? The effect is poor customer service. The cause is being profit driven. The solution to a problem always addresses the cause of the problem, so why then would you feel it appropriate to eliminate an entire industry? Do you know how many people would lose jobs and not have anywhere to go? Sure, new government jobs would open up, but you really think a single "company" servicing the entire country would employ as many people? And you know, if it DOES employ as many people, that means the government is doing an inefficient job of running the "company" and is thus wasting tax dollars.

And you talk about people who are drains on society...seems like you're refusing to help it on principal.

I contribute to society. I have a job, I pay my taxes, and I am a unapologetic consumer. I am not the one causing a drain on society, it is the willfully unemployed, the willfully uneducated.

Nice of you to enlighten me. Really, discussion where I'm told I'm wrong with nothing else beyond that it isn't much of a discussion. (I should really let this point slide.)

I explained the concept of non-profit organizations. If you still don't understand, I suggest you attempt to do a little research. Even simply googling "NPO" should be enough to put you on the track toward understanding the concept I've tried to put forth, even if the simple phrase "non-profit organization" somehow does not.

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm

lmao you're ridiculous

It doesn't matter what YOU think a person's worth is, it matters what EVERYONE ELSE thinks a person's worth is. If you think an unskilled employee at McDonald's deserves 20 dollars an hour, try telling them that. Use your free speech to your heart's content. But it won't do any good, because the free market says unskilled labor is inexpensive. If one person refuses to work for such small wages, surely there will be SOME OTHER person who would. Because unskilled labor is a so common. If a person wants to make good money, they need to make themselves special in some way; a special skill, trait, ability, craft, anything.

You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism.

Or in other words "I am a communist", to which I say, gtfo my america plz

if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.

Yes, if we (employers included) weren't free, it would be bad.

Well, it'd DEFINITELY be a waste of money for the government to be funding social programs for the people who don't need them.

So you don't think the middle class deserves any help, but the lowest class deserves all of the help? You'd propose to shoot the middle class in the foot to better the lower class?

I think not seeing people living and dying on the streets helps the greater good anyways.

lmao "greater good" is NOT a good thing. You'll cut off the individual so that the AVERAGE might be higher? Where's the limitation to this mindset? Would you propose we go all the way, take all money and possessions of every citizen and equally distribute them for the greater good?

You really don't want more people sitting on the streets asking you for money, do you?

If they're on the street, that's their fault. No matter HOW they got into that situation they're in, there is always a way to move back up.

Originally Posted by Patashu

the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty;

Is anyone actually in favor of a poor tax here?

And actually, it would only encourage a cycle in the listful masses. Those who truly are upset over it would do everything they can to climb that ladder. Only the true screwups would be stuck at the bottom. Ever heard of social darwinism? I must admit that I am in favor of it. Survival of the fittest. If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM. Let them die pitiful failures.

But that said, I'm in favor of low taxes for all. I'm not sure how best it'd be to handle it, but I think it's ridiculous that the more money you earn the more the government claims you don't deserve it.

in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.

I don't thinkyou understand Capitalism or the Free Market at all.

think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education.

So they start at the bottom. There is plenty of charity services that help people get off the street and get into jobs. As long as they work hard and aren't completely hopeless, they can move on from being homeless into being contributing members of society.

aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck

How on earth could LUCK move a homeless man up to being a contributing member of society? When a person is at the bottom it takes effort and hard work.

most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were.

Not everyone can be rich. Class distinctions exist for a reason. WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. We can't all be millionaires.

this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin.

I don't think you understand ANYTHING, because the poor are STILL poor from the start and live week by week, paycheck by paycheck constantly teetering on the edge.

how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it?

By slowly working your way up with hard work, effort, and a bit of luck.

unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.

It is difficult, but it is possible. All it takes is a little charity combined with hard work for a homeless person to work themselves off of the streets.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

Maybe that it's not cost effective to educate the masses in the way they do? Maybe that by putting responsibility of education on the individual, it will more easily separate the "men" from the "boys".

As my closing remark, I would just like to reiterate that anyone in favor of communism or socialism is free to leave the country at any time. You point to examples around the world with socialized medical systems that you love so much, so what are you waiting for. Move there. If you're so distasteful towards Capitalism and economic class distinctions, get the **** out. USA is clearly not the country for you. Go take a read over the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for clear mission statements. It's not the government's job to give you insurance.

[Patashu]

edit: I'm going to go put c-c-communist pig somewhere in my sig now

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

First off, if your talking about people who designed technology that made the entire world a better off place (medicine, computer) then yes you deserve the money. If your smart about the economy and the stock and make a lot of money then you deserve it.

you seem to be conflating the idea of being rich with being productive or smart or worthy; it's actually not. some methods of making money are easy, some are hard, some create a lot of common good for the public, some are self-centered and take away from the public.
what has someone who trades in stocks (which is essentially a form of gambling) given to the public?

I was going to add a little bit here going into how money is worth less as you get more and more of it, but this works fine:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-Adam Smith

progressive taxation actually runs according to this rule of money being worth less to you as you get more of it (or along having more disposable income as you get richer, up from the poorest having 0); if we taxed the poor as much as we did the rich, the poor would not be able to sustain themselves and would be ex-taxpayers in contrast to the rich.
the tax brackets don't go up by that much in modern america anyway; the top bracket is taxed something like 30-40% now when before Reagan it was way up in the 80s.

also, do you think that the slowly increasing progressive tax brackets really discourage people from taking up jobs with higher income, or do you think they do it anyway because there's still an increase inherent?

Wow I was literally laughing when I read this. Almost every rich person has an unpayable debt or an extremely high debt. think about it.

uuh?

FIRST OFF the minimum wage increased.

minimum wage != living wage in america unfortunately

And if you think this plan isn't going to tax the poor then maybe you should take a look at Obamas speeches. ELECTRICAL COSTS ARE GOING TO SKYROCKET! This affects everybody! And even the poor are going to have to pay the new healthcare tax...

hang on a second. are you arguing against nationalized healthcare being a good thing or against the policies Obama is enacting? Obama could do the ****tiest job in the world and it wouldn't be an argument against nationalized healthcare but the way Obama/the senate went about it.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Who "funds" the current system? THE CUSTOMERS. Customers pay money to the company and that income is what the company uses to pay for medical treatments and pay its employees.

It'd be the EXACT same with it running on a NPO model, except that instead of going above and beyond to reach higher profits for the shareholders, they'd be more interested in ACTUALLY PROVIDING SERVICE.

cool, so you'd be all for government healthcare then B)

Because I wasn't alive when it began and I only relatively recently have been enlightened as to what I feel the purpose of government should be in society. I believe that government should protect our "god-given" rights and nothing more; you evidently feel the government should baby us and take care of those who can't take care of themselves, usually because they are too lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc. Life, liberty, right to own property. That's all I want my government concerned with, along with any necessary societal systems which is cost prohibitive for the private sector (like water). If the government is doing something that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with protecting those things, then I feel they're overstepping their boundaries.

excuse me? all poor people are lazy, stupid and incompetent? it's not easy to be poor, you know; if you're homeless forget about being able to get a job, you need a legal address for practically everything. even if you do you're not going to manage to get anything spectacular because you can't afford to be educated because you're poor because your parents were poor to so you stay poor and just barely get by from pay check to pay check and as soon as you're inconvenienced by sufficient illness/injury/other upset you're screwed because of a complete lack of disposable income. would like to reiterate again that 50% of bankruptcies in america are related to medical costs, and it is impossible to control when you get sick or when you don't.
you think the government should protect the god-given right to life? so, like... nationalized healthcare, then? B)
also if that's the only things you want government doing then there aren't many countries in the world you'll like, since they all provide many, many more services beyond these three fundamentals you pulled out of thin air (and for good reason at that; without a central organization not concerned with profit you would have no central force to break up monopolies and regulate businesses to ensure they acted fairly, to provide law enforcement/military/justice systems that are universally recognized and thus able to mediate all of society, etc etc)

The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life).


Not just desirable, but necessary for modern society. Can you honestly imagine true anarchy in the modern world thanks to lack of a legal system?


Ok, let me repeat myself AGAIN.

The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO.


And you want to achieve this by forced redistribution of wealth. Now, of course, you're not advocating full redistribution (which would be communism), but you are advocating a free-money idea here, taking money from those with a lot and giving it to those who haven't earned it.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each...s_contribution
particularly this portion:
"Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his Constitution. He writes that 'The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' It is especially noteworthy that he says the principle of socialism and not full communism."


When there is a product/service one person cannot afford and you take money from another person in order to give the product/service to the first person for "free", what is the difference?


No, it wouldn't be putting millionaires into the poorhouse, but I say even a single cent is wrong.


This topic is under the topic of "Socialism". I think discussing the nature of Capitalism and Communism is entirely appropriate, at least as far as they relate to the concept of Socialism and why it may be desirable or unwanted.


I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house.


No, I was just referring to the fact that it is WRONG of you to think we are all equal or that we are all entitled to certain things. The only thing we are entitled to is our rights to life, liberty and ownership of property, and a myriad of other related rights in the Bill of Rights.


Oh, I bet their healthcare isn't too bad, but how do you think their life is like? What do you think the average income is? I really like being able to afford a bigass TV and tons of electronics. I doubt I'd be doing very well in a place such as that. Sure, I'd be just as healthy as I am now probably, but my life would be less enjoyable I think.


It doesn't matter. The problem is the DENIED NECESSARY CLAIMS that come about because of the FOR PROFIT MODEL. If you tear down the system and rebuild it as NPO, people wouldn't be so easily rejected for necessary medical care.

If you don't mind an analogy, imagine a person has a large wart on the bottom of his foot. It's terrible and quite painful to even walk, but aside from that, his body is working correctly. This problem is akin to the for-profit business model that health insurance runs on. What I am suggesting is akin to talking to a doctor and getting it dug out so that hopefully tissue can regrow there correctly. What you are suggesting is akin to severing both of the man's entire legs to ensure the problem doesn't come back.


Screw those socialist bastards. Just because it can be functional doesn't mean it's the ideal solution to the problem. Furthermore, we are a LOT different than those countries. In fact, I again point to my statement about the states: if this were something on a state level, I would be a lot more OK with it, and in this case due to the simplification of the process requiring more spread out micromanagement. But the USA as a whole is MUCH larger than any of the countries you named. How can you say "tiny ol' England works fine, big-ass USA must as well!" And seriously, England is all crazy with leftist ****; they're seriously a stone's throw away from full-on Big Brother.

Is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

If so, ****ing move there and leave America to people who actually prefer our economic system to not have ridiculous government tinkering.

Is anyone actually in favor of a poor tax here?

And actually, it would only encourage a cycle in the listful masses. Those who truly are upset over it would do everything they can to climb that ladder. Only the true screwups would be stuck at the bottom. Ever heard of social darwinism? I must admit that I am in favor of it. Survival of the fittest. If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM. Let them die pitiful failures.

But that said, I'm in favor of low taxes for all. I'm not sure how best it'd be to handle it, but I think it's ridiculous that the more money you earn the more the government claims you don't deserve it.


I don't thinkyou understand Capitalism or the Free Market at all.


So they start at the bottom. There is plenty of charity services that help people get off the street and get into jobs. As long as they work hard and aren't completely hopeless, they can move on from being homeless into being contributing members of society.


How on earth could LUCK move a homeless man up to being a contributing member of society? When a person is at the bottom it takes effort and hard work.


Not everyone can be rich. Class distinctions exist for a reason. WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. We can't all be millionaires.


I don't think you understand ANYTHING, because the poor are STILL poor from the start and live week by week, paycheck by paycheck constantly teetering on the edge.


By slowly working your way up with hard work, effort, and a bit of luck.


It is difficult, but it is possible. All it takes is a little charity combined with hard work for a homeless person to work themselves off of the streets.


Maybe that it's not cost effective to educate the masses in the way they do? Maybe that by putting responsibility of education on the individual, it will more easily separate the "men" from the "boys".

As my closing remark, I would just like to reiterate that anyone in favor of communism or socialism is free to leave the country at any time. You point to examples around the world with socialized medical systems that you love so much, so what are you waiting for. Move there. If you're so distasteful towards Capitalism and economic class distinctions, get the **** out. USA is clearly not the country for you. Go take a read over the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for clear mission statements. It's not the government's job to give you insurance.

too much to reply to atm, maybe later??

edit: wait this one really stuck out to me though. tell us more about how the free market pays everyone exactly the amount of money they deserve for having contributed X amount of worth to society :allears: for instance, explain why bank/privatized prison/american privatized healthcare CEOs are paid so much for providing negative net gain, and we'll move on from there

[fido123]

First of all every country that has any sort of tax is socialist to some extent. You give a portion of money to your government and they provide you with services such as roads, other transportation like trains and buses, police, firemen. The argument should really be is health care an essential service which in my opinion it is. Insurance isn't a good means of protection for everybody as if you have some sort of medical condition, they deny you when you need their help most. Instead of just coming out and calling it communist, just look at it logically. Every country needs some level of socialism and right now, the countries leaning a bit further to the left like Sweden and Denmark are the ones with the highest standards of living. Taxing the poor more than the rich isn't good either but Patchsu already covered that. It's not really Darwinism if the government is suppressing them, making them unable to climb to the top.

[Patashu]

it's not so much the government but the very way society is set up that allows people to be born into circumstances that disproportionately favour or disfavour them; a lot of someone's 'fortune' or 'success' is from the class they were born into as opposed to purely on their personal ability/choices. if you have to bootstrap your way up to getting an education or job training you're still far disadvantaged than children of a rich family who get it all easy with disposable income to spare

[devonin]

As an aside Afro, you seem to be all about healthcare being run privately by NPOs...just how do you suggest the system be converted from for-profit to non-profit? It wouldn't be...by direct government interference in the system would it?

[Cavernio]

"I'm sure that if you had a real job in America (Like a teacher, because now educational funds are being cut HORRIBLY) you might think that you shouldn't be taxed more because you do have a real job."

Yeah, if I had a real job I'm sure I'd be upset that I'm paying taxes and not happy that I'd be making money. My parents are quite wealthy and are taxed heavily. I've lived with both sides of the taxing story, my personal experience is not changing my mind here.

"If people weren't so stupid and cutting educational funds, people might know what the hell causes what. Plus Medicaid can provide vaccinations for poor people depending on how bad off they are financially. Your talking about people that live in trailers because they don't want to improve there life. They have no incentive. Lets talk about America as a whole. "

Umm, no, I was addressing Afrobean specifically here. I also can't believe you're saying our research into health issues isn't good enough.

"Then go to some forum our talk to your senator about it. It won't work now and not ever, especially in this moment in time."

FFS read the rest of the paragraph, you're obviously not paying attention.
I'm arguing mainly with afrobean because you have nothing worth arguing against hayate. Poor people shouldn't be taxed as much as rich people. I don't see how electricity costs for providing healthcare could magically go up without any need to actually be running more electricity. If they do, it would only be because the free market would make them that way.

Afro:
"The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life)."

2 of those 3 things regarding roads are laws and hence also part of the legal system. As far as your liberty goes, I have no idea how you can think your government should provide roads to places you want to visit and still hold the views you do. It's also a liberty to be able to live, that's the liberty that healthcare provides. I'd say it's much much more of a liberty than being able to drive wherever I want. Furthermore, if you really wanted liberty to go wherever you want, why stop at government roads? Why not give every family a vehicle?

This is how I see your opinion here: You don't like being taxed, you hold to a free market viewpoint, you don't want to have to pay for lazy people to get stuff. Ergo, anything that makes you pay more taxes you're going to initially be against. That's fine. However, you also see that a lot of what your government does and what taxes do is actually good. Since it works well, you see no reason to get rid of it. But that doesn't fit into your cognitive scheme in general about the free market and capitalism, so you're trying to make up **** pretending that it does fit into your larger set idea. It's a very common thing for everyone to do. It's called cognitive dissonance when someone is faced with someone that runs counter their beliefs. People will try to fit facts to their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs. The only consistent thing that I see with your beliefs is that you hate having to help people who don't help themselves, and taxes make you do that. I think you're a ****ing prick and are totally unable to put yourself in someone else's place, Mr. I-have-good-health-so-I-can't-understand-how-people-who-have-poor-health-shouldn't-be-held-accountable-for-their-poverty.

"The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO."

But we're in a free market, and if the market WANTS a non-profit organization, then enough people will feel the same way and it will happen. Clearly the fact that we DON'T have one now means that this isn't what people want. (Did I do that right? I just want to make sure I've used the free market argument properly, I'm used to counter-arguing it, not using it.)
Seriously though, we should be talking about this more. It does seem like a NPO healthcare system could work. There's some issues I have though. First of all, I have a hard time seeing how to implement it without the government stomping on health insurance companies in some way, shape or form, and that's obviously against people's liberties and I can see the same people getting upset about that as who are getting upset about government run healthcare. I just don't see any significant change happening in how people will choose to get healthcare without some sort of kick start. People are used to having insurance, the majority of people have insurance, and the majority of people (probably) with insurance feel perfectly safe with it, and don't expect to not be covered. There's no reason why these people would choose to change.
I suppose even with a NPO for health system, there could be some sort of NPO insurance to go with it. I'm sure that insurance would be very costly though, it'd have to be. And why would anyone opt to pay more insurance? Even if once they're trying to make a claim and seeing the light of their errors, that doesn't matter, because they're choice, for better or for worse, is likely going to choose to pay less. Just like you who choose to not have insurance at all. If a NPO weren't to have some sort of insurance policy, then I just don't see people using that system for any procedures that cost more than 500$.
You need to elaborate on your NPO idea, because what I'm envisioning is just not going to work out.

"So you don't think the middle class deserves any help, but the lowest class deserves all of the help? You'd propose to shoot the middle class in the foot to better the lower class?"
Yes, exactly what I said. I went into a whole discussion about taxes and said exactly how much a person of middle-class income should pay, said exactly where that money will go, and totally glazed over the high income earners. FFS don't be an idiot, I'm not supporting shooting middle class people in the foot. I ideally want everyone to all relatively be middle class. Oh, and I also like art, so I should be compared to Hitler.

"I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house."
But those 5 kids of the 20 year old mother don't deserve less than the 35 year old who's unemployed. Furthermore, that 20 year old mother probably has a mental illness which makes her promiscuous, like borderline personality disorder, which in turn was probably exapserated by a crappy childhood she had. Your arguments about people simply being lazy are used by proponents of things like racism, because black people in north america make less money and are less skilled. I'm not sure if this matters to you though, because people who are racist are about as distasteful as you are. If everyone supported social darwinism, we'd have had no immigrants, blacks, or native americans in the US.

"If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM."

YOU ARE WRONG. Poor, unskilled masses contribute en masse to our economy. Our technology is not so advanced yet as to have all of our ****ty jobs be automatized, we're a loooooong ways off. It's terrible that you can somehow say **** about the free market and somehow claim that that supports you being an asshole.

*edit: I missed some posts in the time it took me to post. I totally agree with devonin, fido, and patashu

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by devonin

As an aside Afro, you seem to be all about healthcare being run privately by NPOs...just how do you suggest the system be converted from for-profit to non-profit? It wouldn't be...by direct government interference in the system would it?

That depends on how direct we're talking about here.

I'd probably estimate that it's not legal for a NPO to function as an insurance agency at present probably due to bull**** lobbying, as I've never heard of it happening. First step would be to fix that. If that alone doesn't encourage enough better service providers, give tax incentives. Tax incentivized free market is better than government interception or complete removal of the industry in favor of socialization, and it's better than the current bull**** profit-driven system. If the goal is to fix service providers, I don't see why people would suggest merely killing them all off to replace them with a LONE "non-profit organization"... I seriously cannot get over how people can be in favor cutting out the free market and eliminating all of the jobs from the job pool. The only thing I can figure is they so greatly enjoy the idea of people like me being FORCED to pay for all the medical treatments poor ****s who can't afford it want, all for the greater good. You know what would be good for the "greater good"? Capital punishment for repeat offenders. Does that sound like something desirable? How about making automobiles illegal to spare the lives of every person who would die in a wreck? That would be better for the greater good. And alcohol, tobacco and firearms: so many people have deaths involving one or more of these things, just remove liberty completely in favor of trying to keep everyone alive... even those who don't deserve it... **** the "greater good" and **** anyone who is in favor of that ****.

Long-winded fellows, expect a long-winded reply from me later on tonight.

[Patashu]

Don't government jobs count as jobs as well, or do they have to be provided by the Freemarket to count? Under nationalized healthcare, the doctors don't go away, the payment system between doctor and client is simply mediated by different people.

Also your examples are fallacious in that you're comparing the banning of things that have some good and some bad effects with the replacement of a system that is almost all bad (privatized healthcare) with something better; they're clearly not the same, you can't band them together under the same banner.

Also why do you keep complaining about being taxed to pay for others healthcare when the amount you'd end up paying is roughly an average of the amount you'd pay for on average for your own healthcare over your lifetime under privatized healthcare...well, in fact, far far less then that because of the removed 30% administrative costs during the move to privatized healthcare, the fairer system, the additional wealth going around due to people more able to hold down jobs and homes, etc etc blah blah

[devonin]

Changed the thread name since we're pretty soundly on the one topic now.

[kommisar[os]]

delete this post plz

[kommisar[os]]

socialised healthcare is probably one of the better functionning healthcare systems where it works.

i do have a question however, taking my canadian country in example: to fund medicare are the funds strictly from taxes or do they have another source where everyone pays a certain amount anyways?

i guess canada could be considered a little socialist due to having higher taxes and more services given (correct me if i'm wrong on this one) and stepping foot into a hospital doesn't cost you 100$. i'd like to know why a little extra tax payed for free hospital services isn't better than paying retarded fees and having people dumped on the streets due to lack of funding (even with medicare, some people have to "co-pay" stupid amounts for something that could be free).

in new-brunswick taxes were as high as 15% before harper became pm. state of maine had about 7%. an extra 8% off everything you pay would mean you don't pay any medical expenses. yea sounds more expensive to live with 15% taxes, but its not like everyone sets money aside in case they get sick, nor will they know how much it will cost them.