kaya ...
"'it is a silly fallacy that people have a right to health care'
Shame on you, you Anti-American you!
We hold the rights to be self-evident, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Without health care you may be deprived of your right to life."
This is just plainly foolish. The guarantee of a right to life does not mean that you are guaranteed health; laws are not designed to subjugate nature -- they are designed to protect against the evil of men towards one another. This is why the left amuses me so -- you would have a law outlawing bad hair days with taxpayer subsidies for those born with cowlicks.
"It's a matter of being humanitarian any way."
I do not disagree that it is a noble idea, but it is an unfeasible idea ... look at the history of socialised medicine and it's effects on economies and tell me that this is not so.
"If you say that this war was about freeing Iraqis, saving Iraqi children from Saddam, then turn around and say that only those Americans that can afford health care deserve it you are a hypocrite."
First off, I don't say that this (presumably the war in Iraq) war is about freeing Iraqis. I say it's about a little man with big dreams trying to create a global imperium out of a country that is just barely holding it's shit together without becoming global enemy number one. You clearly have me mistaken for another poster.
That said, I do not feel that only people who can afford health care deserve it; however the end of such systems as Medicaid, Medicare, and various "comprehensive health" shemes that have been tabled in the last two decades, along with strict, once-and-for-all tort reform, would bring about an end to the perceived health care crisis.
I say 'perceived' health care crisis because what is not commonly cited in the gloomy statistics is that America's "40 million uninsured" people includes those people who, for whatever reason, simply do not purchase health insurance. I don't have health insurance; don't want any thanks. Many people might otherwise be able to afford health insurance, but make economic choices which cloud the option from their budget, i.e. cars, homes, credit cards that are beyond their true disposable income level that therefore cut into expenditures which you and other closet Socialists consider to be *high priority* However, if health insurance were truly a priority to that individual he would have bought a Saturn instead of an Acura, and not be sitting in some Starbucks with a bunch of other yuppie pukes bitching about how so many Americans don't have health insurance, and just look at how successful it is in other countries and somebodyoughtadosomethingthereoughtabealaworsomething.
<deep breath>
"You have a right to an education because that's one of the reasons your family pays taxes."
I am dumfounded by this statement. So -- the goverment takes money from me at the end of a gun (which, in the end, that is how taxes are taken) and spends some of it on education, therefore I have a right to an education? What if I'd rather spend that money on porno? What if I don't feel like I should pay those taxes? What if I home school my son (I do) and resent the hell out of having to pay for everybody else who is too lay or not well-rounded enough to teach their children themselves?
I agree that our school systems in America are apalling, and that we have continually lowered our standards in an effort to get the averages up on paper. But the answer is not to throw more money and point more fingers; the answer is to do the simple, logical thing and close the schools, stop stealing so much money from citizens, and send those wretched little bastards home so that their parents have no choice but to raise them. A generation from now we might see a marked drop in drug use, violent crime, and other ills which plague our society of responsibility-free parents.
I have a right to an education, because I pay school taxes. That is amazing. A peephole into the mind of Jimmy Carter.
From another post in this same thread you said:
"I'm neither a socialist nor a marxist. I never said anything about a free home."
This, from a person who feels our educational standards are too low. Kaya, advocation of the government enforcing altruistic ethics on it's citizens and reducing the quality of a given good or service to such an extent that it can be provided freely to all is the very definition of Socialism. Not sure what the specific aspect of free housing paid for at the expense of the taxpayers makes it Socialist, but somehow exempts free medical care or education at the expense of taxpayers.
And finally:
"You totally missed the whole point on the medical care issue, I'm not saying it should be free to all. I'm saying people that cannot afford it should not be turned away, with that I'm not talking about a cold either, I mean serious situations."
I don't know which parallel universe America you're in ... but here in the real one it is against the law to turn away a person for essential medical care based on a perceived or actual inability on the part of the patient to pay. This does not mean everyone can run out and get a boob job or Botox on Uncle Sam, but it does mean that a guy making minimum wage in a Burger King who maims his hand in a trash compactor can get emergency care that might save his hand from having to be amputated. Will his service be actually free? No. But on the other hand, neither is health care in Sweden: they pay approximately 50% of their income in taxes, not including VAT and sales taxes and various piddling registrations and licence fees etc.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If it has to be produced, it has to be paid for by somebody. The fact that the person receiving the service does not receive a bill does not make it free, and the fact that money is stolen from hard-working middle and upper class producers who create the economy in the first place in order to perpetuate the fantasy for the other half is apalling.
Phaedrus
"'it is a silly fallacy that people have a right to health care'
Shame on you, you Anti-American you!
We hold the rights to be self-evident, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Without health care you may be deprived of your right to life."
This is just plainly foolish. The guarantee of a right to life does not mean that you are guaranteed health; laws are not designed to subjugate nature -- they are designed to protect against the evil of men towards one another. This is why the left amuses me so -- you would have a law outlawing bad hair days with taxpayer subsidies for those born with cowlicks.
"It's a matter of being humanitarian any way."
I do not disagree that it is a noble idea, but it is an unfeasible idea ... look at the history of socialised medicine and it's effects on economies and tell me that this is not so.
"If you say that this war was about freeing Iraqis, saving Iraqi children from Saddam, then turn around and say that only those Americans that can afford health care deserve it you are a hypocrite."
First off, I don't say that this (presumably the war in Iraq) war is about freeing Iraqis. I say it's about a little man with big dreams trying to create a global imperium out of a country that is just barely holding it's shit together without becoming global enemy number one. You clearly have me mistaken for another poster.
That said, I do not feel that only people who can afford health care deserve it; however the end of such systems as Medicaid, Medicare, and various "comprehensive health" shemes that have been tabled in the last two decades, along with strict, once-and-for-all tort reform, would bring about an end to the perceived health care crisis.
I say 'perceived' health care crisis because what is not commonly cited in the gloomy statistics is that America's "40 million uninsured" people includes those people who, for whatever reason, simply do not purchase health insurance. I don't have health insurance; don't want any thanks. Many people might otherwise be able to afford health insurance, but make economic choices which cloud the option from their budget, i.e. cars, homes, credit cards that are beyond their true disposable income level that therefore cut into expenditures which you and other closet Socialists consider to be *high priority* However, if health insurance were truly a priority to that individual he would have bought a Saturn instead of an Acura, and not be sitting in some Starbucks with a bunch of other yuppie pukes bitching about how so many Americans don't have health insurance, and just look at how successful it is in other countries and somebodyoughtadosomethingthereoughtabealaworsomething.
<deep breath>
"You have a right to an education because that's one of the reasons your family pays taxes."
I am dumfounded by this statement. So -- the goverment takes money from me at the end of a gun (which, in the end, that is how taxes are taken) and spends some of it on education, therefore I have a right to an education? What if I'd rather spend that money on porno? What if I don't feel like I should pay those taxes? What if I home school my son (I do) and resent the hell out of having to pay for everybody else who is too lay or not well-rounded enough to teach their children themselves?
I agree that our school systems in America are apalling, and that we have continually lowered our standards in an effort to get the averages up on paper. But the answer is not to throw more money and point more fingers; the answer is to do the simple, logical thing and close the schools, stop stealing so much money from citizens, and send those wretched little bastards home so that their parents have no choice but to raise them. A generation from now we might see a marked drop in drug use, violent crime, and other ills which plague our society of responsibility-free parents.
I have a right to an education, because I pay school taxes. That is amazing. A peephole into the mind of Jimmy Carter.
From another post in this same thread you said:
"I'm neither a socialist nor a marxist. I never said anything about a free home."
This, from a person who feels our educational standards are too low. Kaya, advocation of the government enforcing altruistic ethics on it's citizens and reducing the quality of a given good or service to such an extent that it can be provided freely to all is the very definition of Socialism. Not sure what the specific aspect of free housing paid for at the expense of the taxpayers makes it Socialist, but somehow exempts free medical care or education at the expense of taxpayers.
And finally:
"You totally missed the whole point on the medical care issue, I'm not saying it should be free to all. I'm saying people that cannot afford it should not be turned away, with that I'm not talking about a cold either, I mean serious situations."
I don't know which parallel universe America you're in ... but here in the real one it is against the law to turn away a person for essential medical care based on a perceived or actual inability on the part of the patient to pay. This does not mean everyone can run out and get a boob job or Botox on Uncle Sam, but it does mean that a guy making minimum wage in a Burger King who maims his hand in a trash compactor can get emergency care that might save his hand from having to be amputated. Will his service be actually free? No. But on the other hand, neither is health care in Sweden: they pay approximately 50% of their income in taxes, not including VAT and sales taxes and various piddling registrations and licence fees etc.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If it has to be produced, it has to be paid for by somebody. The fact that the person receiving the service does not receive a bill does not make it free, and the fact that money is stolen from hard-working middle and upper class producers who create the economy in the first place in order to perpetuate the fantasy for the other half is apalling.
Phaedrus
Between all the BS posturing, there are a few gems of wisdom and truth. But a few notes:
1) MRI's are not, and have not been considered, "experimental" in Canada for a very long time - at least 8 years. MRI equipment is provided, but as doctors wont, they over-prescribe it for diagnoses, resulting in long waiting periods. Canada is slower to adopt new drug treatments of certain types, but quick to adopt medical technology.
2) Sweeden's taxation levels as of 2001, including hidden taxes, puts them at 86.6%. Canada is at 57%.
3) Regardless of the motives, means, and opportunity for the war on Iraq...someone had to step up to the plate and do the deed - if I'm getting beaten and the cops won't come, I hope I have a neighbour willing to help out. 500,000 Iraqi citizens dead and/or missing, and that doesn't include the military lost during conflicts with Iran, Gulf Storm Episode I, etc, plus a known, demonstrated history of procuring, using, and hiding WMD.
Just 2 cents (.0001 cents US).
InsideEdge
1) MRI's are not, and have not been considered, "experimental" in Canada for a very long time - at least 8 years. MRI equipment is provided, but as doctors wont, they over-prescribe it for diagnoses, resulting in long waiting periods. Canada is slower to adopt new drug treatments of certain types, but quick to adopt medical technology.
2) Sweeden's taxation levels as of 2001, including hidden taxes, puts them at 86.6%. Canada is at 57%.
3) Regardless of the motives, means, and opportunity for the war on Iraq...someone had to step up to the plate and do the deed - if I'm getting beaten and the cops won't come, I hope I have a neighbour willing to help out. 500,000 Iraqi citizens dead and/or missing, and that doesn't include the military lost during conflicts with Iran, Gulf Storm Episode I, etc, plus a known, demonstrated history of procuring, using, and hiding WMD.
Just 2 cents (.0001 cents US).
InsideEdge
I seem to recall that the UKs blanket neo communist system
cost around 10% of GDP.
Whereas the American freedom to die in the gutter like a dog system
cost around 15% GDP.
I'll see if I can dig any dirt on this over the next couple of days, just to confirm or deny.
Taxation is the lefts flow down system, as opposed to the right wing trickle down system of minimum taxes and welfare cutbacks.
Basically if you want to take profits for yourself as a business/corporation you must pay your contribution to the civilisation that you are exploiting.
Whether your business exists or not, the work/service still exists, and If you dont do it someone else will, and they will bear that responsibility, and take those profits.
Those that can move offshore to the bag of rice a day economies, usually do. Mass production manufacturing being a prime example.
[This message was edited by eek on 04-26-03 at 05:24 AM.]
Whereas the American freedom to die in the gutter like a dog system
I'll see if I can dig any dirt on this over the next couple of days, just to confirm or deny.
Taxation is the lefts flow down system, as opposed to the right wing trickle down system of minimum taxes and welfare cutbacks.
Basically if you want to take profits for yourself as a business/corporation you must pay your contribution to the civilisation that you are exploiting.
Whether your business exists or not, the work/service still exists, and If you dont do it someone else will, and they will bear that responsibility, and take those profits.
Those that can move offshore to the bag of rice a day economies, usually do. Mass production manufacturing being a prime example.
[This message was edited by eek on 04-26-03 at 05:24 AM.]
http://www3.who.int/whosis/whr_statistics/maps/map5.pdf
Its a pig to load..
Stats from the world health organisation.
Your GDP expenditure on healthcare is greater than Sweden, yet you still have millions with no cover.
It looks like you spend about twice the GDP that the UK does on healthcare.
The only countries that spend as much as the US look like Germany/Switzerland.
Private healthcare is costing the USA a serious wedge of GDP.
All the cradle to grave systems in europe are cheaper, except for those two.
The word that springs to mind is S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
Its a pig to load..
Stats from the world health organisation.
Your GDP expenditure on healthcare is greater than Sweden, yet you still have millions with no cover.
It looks like you spend about twice the GDP that the UK does on healthcare.
The only countries that spend as much as the US look like Germany/Switzerland.
Private healthcare is costing the USA a serious wedge of GDP.
All the cradle to grave systems in europe are cheaper, except for those two.
The word that springs to mind is S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
Phaedrus,
I guess you missed the point that what I was arguing against is that some posters here express the attitude that tuff luck if you can't afford health care. I know full well people can't be turned away in the U.S.
Also I never said health care should be free for all. On the other hand it shouldn't be priced at the level of high way robbery. I know full well people can't be turned away in the U.S.
So you support the sub-standard of education we receive. You don't feel it is a right by paying taxes into a public, government run educational system that that system provide a decent standard of education. Ok what about value for your dollar, paying taxes to fund a system that provides a lower level of education than a 3rd world country like Costa Rica. I'm not talking about a government enforced police state where all students have straight a's and go to ivy league schools. I'm just talking about providing an adequate, competitive level of education. If our system produces young people less prepared than those of their age in the rest of the world that's an injustice to our youth that puts them at a disavantage. Of course it's up to the student to take advantage of the opportunity work hard, excel and achieve success. The problem is that our public system doesn't provide the tools to do so. The materials and curriculum provided are below a reasonable standard (you could probably say the course material at any given grade from 1st to high school senior is one to two grades below the rest of the developed world and even parts of the lesser developed world). Aside from that the system is ethonocentrical. Did you learn about William Walker in school? Most Americans don't know who he was, why because he was an embarrassment, the don't teach it. The Executive Mansion being burned in the war of 1812 is rarely mentioned if at all either. They teach us that Lincoln was the great emancipator when his true interest was preserving the union. Hell I even remember a report several years ago about maps in public schools, stating that the U.S. was often disproportionately large. Yet you support our sub-standard, deceptive system and put the burden on the student to prepare himself properly and erase misleading info on his/her own elsewhere. So what's the point of having a public educational system then.
I guess you missed the point that what I was arguing against is that some posters here express the attitude that tuff luck if you can't afford health care. I know full well people can't be turned away in the U.S.
Also I never said health care should be free for all. On the other hand it shouldn't be priced at the level of high way robbery. I know full well people can't be turned away in the U.S.
So you support the sub-standard of education we receive. You don't feel it is a right by paying taxes into a public, government run educational system that that system provide a decent standard of education. Ok what about value for your dollar, paying taxes to fund a system that provides a lower level of education than a 3rd world country like Costa Rica. I'm not talking about a government enforced police state where all students have straight a's and go to ivy league schools. I'm just talking about providing an adequate, competitive level of education. If our system produces young people less prepared than those of their age in the rest of the world that's an injustice to our youth that puts them at a disavantage. Of course it's up to the student to take advantage of the opportunity work hard, excel and achieve success. The problem is that our public system doesn't provide the tools to do so. The materials and curriculum provided are below a reasonable standard (you could probably say the course material at any given grade from 1st to high school senior is one to two grades below the rest of the developed world and even parts of the lesser developed world). Aside from that the system is ethonocentrical. Did you learn about William Walker in school? Most Americans don't know who he was, why because he was an embarrassment, the don't teach it. The Executive Mansion being burned in the war of 1812 is rarely mentioned if at all either. They teach us that Lincoln was the great emancipator when his true interest was preserving the union. Hell I even remember a report several years ago about maps in public schools, stating that the U.S. was often disproportionately large. Yet you support our sub-standard, deceptive system and put the burden on the student to prepare himself properly and erase misleading info on his/her own elsewhere. So what's the point of having a public educational system then.
FLY
Do you really think you're only competing with americans for jobs? Big multinational companies will go for the best qualified no matter nationality. Go to Silicon Valley and you'll find lots of people from Europe, India and China and the numbers of foreigners will only improve in the near future.
Books are for squares? I'm a staunch hetersexual and read plenty of books so you're actually wrong.
Do you really think you're only competing with americans for jobs? Big multinational companies will go for the best qualified no matter nationality. Go to Silicon Valley and you'll find lots of people from Europe, India and China and the numbers of foreigners will only improve in the near future.
Books are for squares? I'm a staunch hetersexual and read plenty of books so you're actually wrong.
kaya ... sorry for lag time; haven't been in the poli forum much lately.
OK, I don't think it's "tough luck" if a person can't afford health care. But on a scale from "tough luck" to "I am my brother's keeper" I have to admit to being closer to the former than the latter.
The main reason why the US system is so incredibly iniefficient is that the politicians try to appease all party, and so continuos legislation is passed which conflicts existing legislation, and creates layer after layer of soft expense in the form of compliance costs on the part of health care providers and, more often, insurers.
For instance, insurers are only allowed to rate up the cost of your insurance for unpopular behaviour, such as smoking. They can't increase your insurance premium if you are known to indulge in other behaviours that might put you at risk for sickness or injury. In some states they aren't even allowed to take in such patently obvious factors as occupational hazard; i.e. they are required to treat CPA's and dynamite handlers as being on equal footing, because the state "provides" guidelines for such idiotic institutions as OSHA and workman's comp and therefore insurers are deprived of their right to practice reasonable discretion in to whom they will extend a given coverage and for what cost.
I do not support the sub-standard level of education American children receive. I think that the whole system of education in America should be shut down and that's that. It is a classic example of the axiom: if you want an important job done badly, turn it over to the government. In the last two decades the publication of <i>A Nation at Risk</i>, which was the rallying cry for education in 1983, per-student school expenditure has risen by 40% and overall educational costs have increased by almost 80% adjusted for inflation. Teacher salaries have increased dramatically, student:teacher ratios have dropped, we've ostensibly done everything right.
Yet America is being dumbed down all the more. Standards are lowered so that everyone will pass, rather than being raised so that those who want to learn and try to are rewarded with the pride of acheivement that would come from excelling in a challenging medium. Our schools are nothing more than day-care centers designed to keep kids off the street until they are eighteen, and they fail at even that modest task for the most part.
I've never been one for conspiracy theories, but if I ever buy into one it will most likely be that schools in America are nothing more than "indoctrination centers" designed to foster complacency and submission to authority in American youth. My own son is so far ahead of children his age group, who are in public institutions, that it is just sad (for the others, not for himself or his mother and I, who are immensely proud of him and ourselves.)
And while I've never done a true accounting, I guarantee you we spend nowhere near $ 8,000.00 a year on educational supplies for him. Even more importantly, we've never asked armed thugs to steal money from the neighbours to pay for my son's education -- which is precisely the arrangement the neighbours have with regards to their own kids' education.
That being said, I think my response to your question
<i>So what's the point of having a public educational system then.</I>
is quite obvious.
Phaedrus
OK, I don't think it's "tough luck" if a person can't afford health care. But on a scale from "tough luck" to "I am my brother's keeper" I have to admit to being closer to the former than the latter.
The main reason why the US system is so incredibly iniefficient is that the politicians try to appease all party, and so continuos legislation is passed which conflicts existing legislation, and creates layer after layer of soft expense in the form of compliance costs on the part of health care providers and, more often, insurers.
For instance, insurers are only allowed to rate up the cost of your insurance for unpopular behaviour, such as smoking. They can't increase your insurance premium if you are known to indulge in other behaviours that might put you at risk for sickness or injury. In some states they aren't even allowed to take in such patently obvious factors as occupational hazard; i.e. they are required to treat CPA's and dynamite handlers as being on equal footing, because the state "provides" guidelines for such idiotic institutions as OSHA and workman's comp and therefore insurers are deprived of their right to practice reasonable discretion in to whom they will extend a given coverage and for what cost.
I do not support the sub-standard level of education American children receive. I think that the whole system of education in America should be shut down and that's that. It is a classic example of the axiom: if you want an important job done badly, turn it over to the government. In the last two decades the publication of <i>A Nation at Risk</i>, which was the rallying cry for education in 1983, per-student school expenditure has risen by 40% and overall educational costs have increased by almost 80% adjusted for inflation. Teacher salaries have increased dramatically, student:teacher ratios have dropped, we've ostensibly done everything right.
Yet America is being dumbed down all the more. Standards are lowered so that everyone will pass, rather than being raised so that those who want to learn and try to are rewarded with the pride of acheivement that would come from excelling in a challenging medium. Our schools are nothing more than day-care centers designed to keep kids off the street until they are eighteen, and they fail at even that modest task for the most part.
I've never been one for conspiracy theories, but if I ever buy into one it will most likely be that schools in America are nothing more than "indoctrination centers" designed to foster complacency and submission to authority in American youth. My own son is so far ahead of children his age group, who are in public institutions, that it is just sad (for the others, not for himself or his mother and I, who are immensely proud of him and ourselves.)
And while I've never done a true accounting, I guarantee you we spend nowhere near $ 8,000.00 a year on educational supplies for him. Even more importantly, we've never asked armed thugs to steal money from the neighbours to pay for my son's education -- which is precisely the arrangement the neighbours have with regards to their own kids' education.
That being said, I think my response to your question
<i>So what's the point of having a public educational system then.</I>
is quite obvious.
Phaedrus
