Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Come on man, are you even trying to understand this? It isn't like this is my pet idea that I am stubbornly holding on to. At least tell me that you understand, now, why certain aspects of healthcare are by definition uninsurable? And that the ONLY way to make sure that everyone can afford these is for some to be subsidized by others?

And jogsxyz, in regards to checkups and immunizations, it is NOT the healthy that are subsidizing the sick. EVERYONE needs them. So it is the rich that are subsidizing the poor. No insurance is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying about insurance. My point is that insurance is a scam anyway, so why do I care about the things that are "uninsurable"? If ANYBODY could keep the COSTS DOWN, then I'm for that. NOBODY IS DOING THIS. There's no reason that costs should go up almost 10% every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is. It's called "government." Did you skip my post? Twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with it, but I didn't skip it.

Then again, I actually lived in Canada for a while, so I don't understand where all the hysteria is coming from in the first place.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Come on man, are you even trying to understand this? It isn't like this is my pet idea that I am stubbornly holding on to. At least tell me that you understand, now, why certain aspects of healthcare are by definition uninsurable? And that the ONLY way to make sure that everyone can afford these is for some to be subsidized by others?

And jogsxyz, in regards to checkups and immunizations, it is NOT the healthy that are subsidizing the sick. EVERYONE needs them. So it is the rich that are subsidizing the poor. No insurance is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying about insurance. My point is that insurance is a scam anyway, so why do I care about the things that are "uninsurable"? If ANYBODY could keep the COSTS DOWN, then I'm for that. NOBODY IS DOING THIS. There's no reason that costs should go up almost 10% every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is. It's called "government." Did you skip my post? Twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with it, but I didn't skip it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, was wrong with it? It was filled with actual arguments that you should be able to show are incorrect if you disagree with them.

[One Outer]

I only have a handful of things to add to this thread. Like an idiot I got myself dragged into this debate the other day and I really don't feel the need to engage except for this post. The upshot is I learned two things from the other thread:

1. National Health Care is practically inevitable in the next 4 years. The conversation we should be having isn't whether or not to do it but about the best way to do it. Therefore...

2. Having a conversation about it with people who don't even like the existence of the government let alone recognize the need for government intervention in many facets of society is completely pointless. They will continue to believe that everything private is necessarily good and everything public necessarily bad and resist the concepts of complexity or nuance. Not going to convince them of anything, ever. Oh the other hand, watching the red faced, stomping childish tantrums they throw about "their" money and "socialism" is enormously entertaining. Moving on.

I read through this entire thread. I don't know what I was expecting but there was ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. The most staggering this was not what the crazies say; their responses and "arguments" are all standard issue reactionary drivel. What stunned me was what the proponents of health care didn't say:

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.

Of course, everyone's talking about efficiency and making attacks on other country's systems and so forth instead of addressing this point, the most important point. And that makes sense given the people driving the discussion. It's in the wingnuts interest to talk about efficiency and waiting lists and all that completely irrelevant crap. If they actually addressed the real question, the right to care, then they would have to justify a viewpoint that denies people basic human rights.

But then again, you wouldn't have a problem telling someone with an uninsurable precondition that would you? Because you got yours, and that's all that matters. Or a child. Or a senior. But that's not who you're talking to when you make these "arguments," is it? It's everybody else, the people you need to convince of your point of view, because you know that you can't change minds and influence people by essentially saying "I don't care about you, or my neighbors or friends or even my own family because I'VE GOT MINE." No sane person is going to buy that, because it's cruel, selfish and downright inhuman.

That's why you're a teeny, tiny marginalized minority and always will be. Other people are better than that. Cheers to the eternal 5 Percenters.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Come on man, are you even trying to understand this? It isn't like this is my pet idea that I am stubbornly holding on to. At least tell me that you understand, now, why certain aspects of healthcare are by definition uninsurable? And that the ONLY way to make sure that everyone can afford these is for some to be subsidized by others?

And jogsxyz, in regards to checkups and immunizations, it is NOT the healthy that are subsidizing the sick. EVERYONE needs them. So it is the rich that are subsidizing the poor. No insurance is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying about insurance. My point is that insurance is a scam anyway, so why do I care about the things that are "uninsurable"? If ANYBODY could keep the COSTS DOWN, then I'm for that. NOBODY IS DOING THIS. There's no reason that costs should go up almost 10% every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is. It's called "government." Did you skip my post? Twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with it, but I didn't skip it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, was wrong with it? It was filled with actual arguments that you should be able to show are incorrect if you disagree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it were the case, the countries which have governmental health care would be run terribly. In my experience, and by the experience of other people here, that is not the case. Government MAY add costs, I'm not denying that. But almost 10% every year? You think that there's that much nmore governmental interference year to year to drive costs up even a fraction of that much?

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
I only have a handful of things to add to this thread. Like an idiot I got myself dragged into this debate the other day and I really don't feel the need to engage except for this post. The upshot is I learned two things from the other thread:

1. National Health Care is practically inevitable in the next 4 years. The conversation we should be having isn't whether or not to do it but about the best way to do it. Therefore...

2. Having a conversation about it with people who don't even like the existence of the government let alone recognize the need for government intervention in many facets of society is completely pointless. They will continue to believe that everything private is necessarily good and everything public necessarily bad and resist the concepts of complexity or nuance. Not going to convince them of anything, ever. Oh the other hand, watching the red faced, stomping childish tantrums they throw about "their" money and "socialism" is enormously entertaining. Moving on.

I read through this entire thread. I don't know what I was expecting but there was ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. The most staggering this was not what the crazies say; their responses and "arguments" are all standard issue reactionary drivel. What stunned me was what the proponents of health care didn't say:

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.

Of course, everyone's talking about efficiency and making attacks on other country's systems and so forth instead of addressing this point, the most important point. And that makes sense given the people driving the discussion. It's in the wingnuts interest to talk about efficiency and waiting lists and all that completely irrelevant crap. If they actually addressed the real question, the right to care, then they would have to justify a viewpoint that denies people basic human rights.

But then again, you wouldn't have a problem telling someone with an uninsurable precondition that would you? Because you got yours, and that's all that matters. Or a child. Or a senior. But that's not who you're talking to when you make these "arguments," is it? It's everybody else, the people you need to convince of your point of view, because you know that you can't change minds and influence people by essentially saying "I don't care about you, or my neighbors or friends or even my own family because I'VE GOT MINE." No sane person is going to buy that, because it's cruel, selfish and downright inhuman.

That's why you're a teeny, tiny marginalized minority and always will be. Other people are better than that. Cheers to the eternal 5 Percenters.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. This is why I don't mind the IDEA of insurance. If myself and a bunch of others group our money to keep us all well, that's great. But when insurance is a for-profit buisness, profit will come before anything else.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.


[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of thinking is anathema to the principles that America was founded on. And that's not an anarchist rant. Read some of Isaiah Berlin's work, particularly "Two Concepts of Liberty," which introduced (I believe) the ideas of positive and negative liberty.

I do think that the gov't should do something to help the poor get health-care, but casting it as a basic human right, in addition to being ludicrous, is scary and dangerous.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.


[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of thinking is anathema to the principles that America was founded on. And that's not an anarchist rant. Read some of Isaiah Berlin's work, particularly "Two Concepts of Liberty," which introduced (I believe) the ideas of positive and negative liberty.

I do think that the gov't should do something to help the poor get health-care, but casting it as a basic human right, in addition to being ludicrous, is scary and dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody should ever be bankrupt because of medical bills.

Is that a scary or dangerous thought?

[Brainwalter]

Every child should have a pony.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
Every child should have a pony.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're in favor of slavery?

Also, has it *always* been a basic human right? Or is this a recent development?