Universal Health Care - Page 4

Kaj · #31 08-07-2007, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And "valid data" in the absence of sound analysis is (intentionally) misleading. That's the entire purpose of studies like that; demagoguery and manipulation of public opinion via half truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, it seems like these studies at least collect some data to contradict some of the demagoguery and half truths floated around by nitwits like Hannity and Limbaugh. You are making a very sweeping conclusion which I believe is unsupported. The study had a lot of objective data (hell, it even ranked US #1 in health care system responsiveness). You don't have to support govt health care to at least acknowledge that the study gave a relatively fair comparison of US health care system to the rest of the world in several key areas, which was its goal (I really don't know what its recommendations were or care to know, I just wanted to see the real data and see how it stacks up against the proclamations from right wingers, who by the way show no data). Do you want to rule out the entire study (or others) because you'd rather assume that US system must be superior? And any examination of this assertion is merely demagoguery and manipulation?

Kaj · #32 08-07-2007, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"There really isn't any more that will come out of discussing this point. "

Or : "I can't counter your point, so you're wrong please don't bring it up again."

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis. But I did counter his point.

Thug Bubbles · #33 08-07-2007, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

GoodCallYouWin · #34 08-07-2007, 06:01 PM

"Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services "

Well of course someone can think whatever they want, it's just an incorrect position. Government monopoly is much less efficient than a system of private property and free trade (not just free trade w/ other nations, but also free trade within the nation).

Kaj · #35 08-07-2007, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

It means that one cannot use moral reasons for this differentiation. In other words, one cannot be against universal health care because it is "socialism" or government interference or unlawful taxation, but be for standing armies. If you acknowledge the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of one, you must acknowledge the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of both. Doesn't mean you still support both, but you acknowledge they are both similar uses (or abuses) of govt power -- you just prefer one over the other, or believe one is more efficient, more practical, or whatever.

GoodCallYouWin · #36 08-07-2007, 06:12 PM

Kaj : By your argument, anyone who supports a measure of taxation (even the tiniest little tax) also supports full out communism.

Kaj · #37 08-07-2007, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj : By your argument, anyone who supports a measure of taxation (even the tiniest little tax) also supports full out communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the following is consistent?

One can support taxation to build roads and schools, but if this money is used to build hospitals, one can make argue against it on moral grounds.

GoodCallYouWin · #38 08-07-2007, 06:41 PM

"One can support taxation to build roads and schools, but if this money is used to build hospitals, one can make argue against it on moral grounds."

I oppose taxation to build roads and schools so the question has no interest to me; but your argument was that because one accepts A) (military by government) they must accept B (health care by government) so why not force them into C (everything by government).

Bobbo539 · #39 08-07-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Universal Health Care...Three little words that keep popping up. Sounds great... right? After all its free...right? Hey sign me up!
But the real story is that it is a bad idea. Bottom line Universal Health Care= higher taxes. But don`t take my word for it. Ask those who live with it, like the nation of Norway.
The goverment ( Norway ) is giving you free health care, or at least that is what they say. But that means you are paying for it with your tax dollars. Norwegians are some of the most heavily taxed people in the world. That makes Norway one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in.
In Norway a glass of cheap wine costs ( in U.S. dollars) 16 dollars, gas costs 9 dollars a gallon, and the tax on a new car doubles the price of that car.
Remember free health care is a bitter pill to swallow. Would you rather spend 20 dollars co-pay on a doctors visit or an extra 20 grand or more on a new car?
Its your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody thinks its free. Guess what? Our Army, Navy, AF, Park Service, Schools, Fire Depts, FBI, etc., aren't free either. So until you start railing against "universal national defense" with equal passion, then your argument is selectively applied (i.e., hypocritical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Because government corrects for the collective action problem. People have personal incentives to cover themselves in the most efficeint way, but people do not have the incentives to build roads or join an army. Its not hypocritical at all to realize that we need some government without expanding every facet of government.

Borodog · #40 08-07-2007, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears we have little more to discuss on the subject.

I will add that I agree completely that the people who want government out of healthcare but in the roads, schools, courts, police, etc. have no intellectual leg to stand on. Once you concede that you think a coercive monopoly can provide any good or service better than a competitive free market, trying to confine the socialist djini to certain sectors of the economy but not others is intellectually bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you think that one must either be one extreme or the other? Meaning, one cannot think that .gov is better for something like national defence while not being so for other services (health care, for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite certain that government is not equally poor at all things it tries to do, but I am also quite certain that it is worse than the free market at providing all goods and services that actually should be provided. It is of course much better than the free market at producing public bads, like monopolies, wars and deathcamps.