So what sort of comments are in your head when you watch this?A million and a half people marched on Washington last Saturday.
I watch America in amusement from Canada. Americans might be fired up about a non-existent bill that will give government some power over the health care industry, but it's not 1% as fired up as Canadians would be if our socialized health care industry was going private. Peculiar at least.That has to be one of the funniest videos I've seen recently :)
As far as I know the bill is to have the following: an insurance company that aims for the least profit possible without going under regulated by the government. Everyone who used the public option would still have to pay for insurance, but the CEO would take home only a few 10's of millions of dollars as apposed to private insurance CEO's taking home a couple billions- effectively decreasing the cost 90%. If no one wants it, they don't have to use it, and tax payer $$$ will not be used to pay for care for those insured.
Think of it a little like this,
I don't have time to watch your videos at the moment.There are many places on the internet you can google for where people have taken the health care bills currently being considered and proved- coverage for illegals is fundamentalPerhaps if you don't know the whole story. All relative citations linked."death panels" are how they plan to save money- Even Obama personally said a 99 year old should not get a pacemaker but instead take a pain pill, etc.People die. I don't think you have fully accepted that. Still the 'death panels' are not in the current legislature so it's not important. But.. aside from government involvement or not, are your against end of life counseling?
This pretty sums up my opinion.:&feature=fvstprivate insurers will be banned from EVER adding any new people to their insurance plans- forcing people through attrition into the government plan.Where can I verify that?
I watch America in amusement from Canada. Americans might be fired up about a non-existent bill that will give government some power over the health care industry, but it's not 1% as fired up as Canadians would be if our socialized health care industry was going private. Peculiar at least.That video was so funny I actually favorited it. XD
As far as I know the bill is to have the following: an insurance company that aims for the least profit possible without going under regulated by the government. Everyone who used the public option would still have to pay for insurance, but the CEO would take home only a few 10's of millions of dollars as apposed to private insurance CEO's taking home a couple billions- effectively decreasing the cost 90%. If no one wants it, they don't have to use it, and tax payer $$$ will not be used to pay for care for those insured.
Think of it a little like this,
There are many places on the internet you can google for where people have taken the health care bills currently being considered and proved- coverage for illegals is fundamentalPerhaps if you don't know the whole story. All relative citations linked.
"death panels" are how they plan to save money- Even Obama personally said a 99 year old should not get a pacemaker but instead take a pain pill, etc.People die. I don't think you have fully accepted that. Still the 'death panels' are not in the current legislature so it's not important. But.. aside from government involvement or not, are your against end of life counseling?
private insurers will be banned from EVER adding any new people to their insurance plans- forcing people through attrition into the government plan.Where can I verify that?
I don't have time to watch your videos at the moment.The summary says that immigrants will have to be insured or else pay a tax that would go to public insurance. It clearly says Illegals won't be covered. You know your teacher with the funny accent? He's an immigrant. It also says that if someone has been waiting for over 3 years to be made a permanent resident they can have access Because they will spend the rest of their life in the states more often than not.
The congressional research service report on illegal alien coverage (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40773_20090825.pdf)
People do die. That's a fact of life. Our healthcare system currently does it's best to prolong life as long as possible. "Death panels" is a colorful term coined by Sarah Palin to describe the rationing of care based on "societal worth" recommended by Obamas healthcare advisor. (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html) (I actually learned a little more reading that!) It's not in the current legislation- because it would be political suicide. Instead they will set up a comission to make those decisions so they (politicians) don't have to take the blame for those decisions.The 2nd video I posted talks about this. Also Palin didn't coin the term herself, she just popularized it. What they will and won't do after this legislature is at best someone's guess - and you can always fight that when/if it happens.
Or just listen to ObamaI don't get it. He's saying that there is a lot of money literally wasted regardless of societal value. Do you deny this? He says that the waste is part of the problem. Do you deny this? Do you deny that there is a problem? He said, to paraphrase, 'if we assume that the 50 000$ surgery increases one's life, on average, by 3 months and often time not at all, and you are poor to the point that you are on medicare, that is waste'. It's a hard fact to deal with but that's no reason to not deal with it.
New policies banned?
"Insurance Companies Banned From Writing New Private Individual Policies – H.R. 3200 contains provisions that will kill private health insurance directly by banning insurance companies from writing new private individual policies." (http://www.danawalshforcongress.com/What's%20Really%20in%20the%20Health%20Care%20Bill.pdf)
Jeez. Get off the fricken TV already. I've never been happier I don't have cable ;DThere are so many things wrong with this. The answer, that I shouldn't give cuase this is just silly, is that he needs 5 interviews a day to erase the misinformation that anyone would be dictating health care in the first place. Not that people like ann coulter are amenable to new information that doesn't fit in with their self-enforcing anti-obama dogma.
Question- if the American people supported government bureaucrats dictating their healthcare would this be necessary?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/obama-may-do-back-to-back-tv-interviews-sunday/
I count 5! interviews in one day
Maybe I should start a blog!
People die. I don't think you have fully accepted that. Still the 'death panels' are not in the current legislature so it's not important. But.. aside from government involvement or not, are your against end of life counseling?I hadn't watched this video before because John Liebowitz is an unfunny moron.
This pretty sums up my opinion.:&feature=fvst
Socialized medicine is great- 5 out of 6 medical diagnoses are correct!Apparently the same as in other developed countries. It seems that the research was done in the USA, according to the evidence I can find. Since I'm currently on holiday I can't access the original article, but it's apparently in the American Journal of Medicine, Volume 121 Issue 5A. However, the Telegraph piece reports:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-patients-misdiagnosed.html
The experts drew on research published in the American Journal of Medicine that estimated that up to 15 per cent of all medical cases in developed countries were misdiagnosed.It's unclear whether this has anything to do with the method of payment for healthcare, whether driven by insurance, single-payer or otherwise, or by any other method. It's also unclear given the similarity between the statistics whether the journalists actually took the number given for all developed countries and simply assumed that it was applicable to the NHS, or whether there was more detail in the actual article.
The root of the issue is- there is no "healthcare crisis" in the US. This is just a blatant power grab by politicians in washington who want to nationalize 1/6 of the economy and bring it under government control to increase their own personal power. The Constitution says- NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE. If you disagree- prove me wrong. If a state wants to implement a state-wide healthcare plan it is the states to decide- and some do. If people want the government to provide their healthcare the Constitution gives them the freedom to move to any state they want.Well, okay, let's break this down. I'll start with the second part since it's a bit simpler. Not being a scholar of the US Constitution, I don't know where in the constitution that it explicitly states that there is to be "NO NATIONAL HEALTHCARE" as you bluntly put it.
And yes that means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all unconstitutional. The government has been ignoring the Constitution since the "New Deal". Seriously- despite constitutional protections allowing us to petition the government for grievances (first ammendment), we the people are not allowed to sue the government for violating the Constitution because the courts have decided "the people" don't have standing to sue.Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one (which I doubt, but we'll go with it for the moment), this leads us to the conclusion that perhaps your constitution is outdated. It's not like it's an inviolate set of laws; there is a provision to create amendments so clearly your founding fathers saw that there may be a need to alter the constitution in the future (and thereby admitting that the document they were creating was not perfect).
But it seems like arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate about the efficacy of the thing in question. As I've outlined before, public healthcare increases social welfare and leads to a higher standard of living. There are few convincing arguments against implementing it at least as part of a mixed market solution. If your only argument against it is that "it's unconstitutional", perhaps the constitution is wrong and needs to be changed (or, perhaps, it's not actually unconstitutional).Truth. The fact that the founding fathers included a provision for amendments to their constitution shows that they knew it would need to be changed to meet the needs of society. And lets face it. Society has changed hugely. I'm not saying a constitution is a bad idea, I think it is very important in any democracy. And I'm not saying it should be easy to change or redraft. But when a country is being denied a basic medical service that most other western democratic countries benefit from, something needs to change. Just like it did the other 27 times the constitution was amended.
I know this isn't the main part of the debate, but I feel like its pretty important. Actually, almost all those things are socialised benefits provided by the government by using taxpayer funds. Say someone breaks into your home, shoots you and sets your house on fire. You think the government should arrest the perpetrator, douse the fire, and then leave you to die? I don't see campaigns to privatise police forces or fire brigades. This is one of my major problems with libertarian philosophy. It is hugely inconsistent to call for the abolishment of 'socialist' governments which every day spends your money to make sure you don't get mugged, comes to your rescue if you do, saves you from fires, makes sure the cars you drive are within stringent safety regulations, maintains the roads you drive them on, provides you with subsidised public transport, maintains your telecommunications exchanges, bails out the shonky businesses you invested in when they go broke, makes provisions for the preservation of wildlife and national parks, builds and maintains vital infrastructure etc etc. And all with the publicly known motive of what is in the best interests of the people.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php)Problem is- None of what they are claiming in that list is "socialism" except for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all three of those programs are not only ILLEGAL PONZI SCHEMES but they are also bankrupt (or very close to it). I love how socialists love to claim every good or necessary thing is socialism.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the debate.
Time to catch up!Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was 133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one (which I doubt, but we'll go with it for the moment), this leads us to the conclusion that perhaps your constitution is outdated. It's not like it's an inviolate set of laws; there is a provision to create amendments so clearly your founding fathers saw that there may be a need to alter the constitution in the future (and thereby admitting that the document they were creating was not perfect).That's the debate that has been raging in this country between liberals who want the "freedom" to change the constitution by changing the meanings of the words clearly to mean the opposite of the intention and conservatives who generally believe the constitution- as a set of principles- means what it says and what the authors intended which can be found by reading some of their other writings.But it seems like arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate about the efficacy of the thing in question. As I've outlined before, public healthcare increases social welfare and leads to a higher standard of living. There are few convincing arguments against implementing it at least as part of a mixed market solution. If your only argument against it is that "it's unconstitutional", perhaps the constitution is wrong and needs to be changed (or, perhaps, it's not actually unconstitutional).Actually you've got that backwards. That argument- "arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate" is in itself just a method to short circuit the debate. Kind of like the "global warming" so-called debate. They proclaim without EVER debating it that "the science is in the debate is over" and just blow off the fact that most scientists and research disprooves it. (No please dont start global warming here I was simply citing the standard communist method)
However- the second point you made- social welfare leads to a higher standard of living is simply untrue. There is not a SINGLE "social" system that has ever improved anybodies life over what a free market can provide.This statement isn't quite clear. Strictly speaking you're comparing a hypothetical outcome to a real one, which isn't actually helpful. No free-market healthcare solution has provided what the free market can optimally provide, by definition. Suggesting that a public system hasn't either is disingenuous.
It is better than some of the systems that it has replaced in many countries- but still lags FAR behind the standard of living created by a truly free market. Look at the healthcare in the US. More advancements in healthcare have been developed here than in any other country. More technology, more improvements- better healthcare for all.Well, to start with, healthcare providers do not actually develop most of the innovations that are generated in the health industry. For the most part, private development firms contract with the providers, or generate investment capital in order to develop new technologies which are then bought by the providers. In fact, the method of payment for healthcare doesn't have as much impact on the research and development sector as you're assuming. Governments can contract with development companies just as private firms can, so the profit motive still exists in mixed systems.
Show me a socialized health system that doesn't have rationing and long waiting lists. That simply doesn't happen here- YET. If the government takes over the system, it will become a necessity when the bottom line becomes more important than the hippocratic oath.The US does have rationing of care. It's called the free market - 15% of people are uninsured, and so therefore 15% of people are rationed out of healthcare by insurance companies and doctors who refuse to treat the uninsured (outside of an emergency room). That's actually quite a basic principle of economics - supply and demand are actually driven by the principle of rationing according to price. Further, in the US the profit motive leads to overtreatment - these two factors taken together are clear-cut signs of what economists call allocative inefficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocative_efficiency).
If you take out people already eligible for a "government" plan, illegal aliens- who Obama is promising won't be covered anyways, people who could afford insurance but choose to spend their money on iphones and cable TV, and people between jobs- who are only temporarily without coverage the number of people chronically uncovered shrinks considerably to a total of 4-10 million depending on the figures you use.You're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.
That's the point I made earlier. Cost is not the issue here in the US- we have the overall BEST care which naturally costs more. If Obama succeeds in his hostile takeover bid- then cost will become the dominant factor.For the moment we'll ignore the Daily Mail repost (given that I already pointed out the source is dubious, it relates to provision rather than funding, and regardless of its veracity anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything) and cut straight to this point.
That's the debate that has been raging in this country between liberals who want the "freedom" to change the constitution by changing the meanings of the words clearly to mean the opposite of the intention and conservatives who generally believe the constitution- as a set of principles- means what it says and what the authors intended which can be found by reading some of their other writings.Personally I find characterising constitutional interpretation as divided on purely partisan lines a little inaccurate given the actions of past "conservative" administrations, but there you go. I think this is a discussion for another thread, however.
Actually you've got that backwards. That argument- "arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate" is in itself just a method to short circuit the debate. Kind of like the "global warming" so-called debate. They proclaim without EVER debating it that "the science is in the debate is over" and just blow off the fact that most scientists and research disprooves it. (No please dont start global warming here I was simply citing the standard communist method)As captain haddock points out, that is in fact not correct. You see, if the debate is about the effectiveness of public healthcare, talking about constitutionality in the context in which you brought it up is what is known as ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi), or more colloquially a red herring. The constitutionality or otherwise of the public healthcare option actually has nothing to do with the effectiveness of public healthcare and making the case against public healthcare on the grounds of constitutionality is an attempt to preclude the debate on effectiveness.
Problem is- None of what they are claiming in that list is "socialism" [...] I love how socialists love to claim every good or necessary thing is socialism.It seems captain haddock has dealt with this one already. But to add to his points, I'm not sure (despite our earlier discussion about it) that you really understand what you are talking about when you casually sling the terms "socialist" and "communist" around. By your own definition, the creation of a public insurance system is socialist - however, if you define that expenditure of public funds as socialist you cannot ignore the other publicly funded institutions which are essential to a functioning modern society like the ones that captain haddock lists above.
Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one (which I doubt, but we'll go with it for the moment), this leads us to the conclusion that perhaps your constitution is outdated. It's not like it's an inviolate set of laws; there is a provision to create amendments so clearly your founding fathers saw that there may be a need to alter the constitution in the future (and thereby admitting that the document they were creating was not perfect).That's the debate that has been raging in this country between liberals who want the "freedom" to change the constitution by changing the meanings of the words clearly to mean the opposite of the intention and conservatives who generally believe the constitution- as a set of principles- means what it says and what the authors intended which can be found by reading some of their other writings.
But it seems like arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate about the efficacy of the thing in question. As I've outlined before, public healthcare increases social welfare and leads to a higher standard of living. There are few convincing arguments against implementing it at least as part of a mixed market solution. If your only argument against it is that "it's unconstitutional", perhaps the constitution is wrong and needs to be changed (or, perhaps, it's not actually unconstitutional).Actually you've got that backwards. That argument- "arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate" is in itself just a method to short circuit the debate. Kind of like the "global warming" so-called debate. They proclaim without EVER debating it that "the science is in the debate is over" and just blow off the fact that most scientists and research disprooves it. (No please dont start global warming here I was simply citing the standard communist method)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php)Problem is- None of what they are claiming in that list is "socialism" except for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all three of those programs are not only ILLEGAL PONZI SCHEMES but they are also bankrupt (or very close to it). I love how socialists love to claim every good or necessary thing is socialism.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the debate.
But it seems like arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate about the efficacy of the thing in question. As I've outlined before, public healthcare increases social welfare and leads to a higher standard of living. There are few convincing arguments against implementing it at least as part of a mixed market solution. If your only argument against it is that "it's unconstitutional", perhaps the constitution is wrong and needs to be changed (or, perhaps, it's not actually unconstitutional).I'll respond to your other point when i have more time, because it does deserve a response.
The US does have rationing of care. It's called the free market - 15% of people are uninsured, and so therefore 15% of people are rationed out of healthcare by insurance companies and doctors who refuse to treat the uninsured (outside of an emergency room). That's actually quite a basic principle of economics - supply and demand are actually driven by the principle of rationing according to price. Further, in the US the profit motive leads to overtreatment - these two factors taken together are clear-cut signs of what economists call allocative inefficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocative_efficiency).I'll try and get back tonight to respond to the rest of the points in this and the other thread. I know I'm falling behind, I don't have a lot of time at the moment.
The constitution forbids it thus we are not even allowed to think about it! Baaah baah!Please keep the discussion civil or don't post at all.
The British constitution allows us to bear arms, but nobody makes use of that clause because we are probably far more sensible than the Americans, at least when it comes to guns. The argument about what the actual will of the founding fathers really was seems pointless and outdated because it does not matter to the USA today. Frankly it did not even matter in the 20th century. All these Americans going insane over the possible health care legislation is entertaining to watch (at a distance) and the cries of this is not what the founding f***s (saints in the american pantheon?) wanted are icing on the cake. Delicious!
If you turn up at a hospital you can quite legally not give your name or any details and still get treated. This means we get a lot of illegal aliens ect using it, but provides us with a service that has treating its patients as its only priority.I agree with the "just turn up" part. You just have to get there... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html) I can find many more examples if you want to dispute treating patients is the priority, but have some catching up to do so I'll leave just the one example for now.
Its not what something costs that matters. It is what you get for that money.That's the point I made earlier. Cost is not the issue here in the US- we have the overall BEST care which naturally costs more. If Obama succeeds in his hostile takeover bid- then cost will become the dominant factor.
But basically I just agree with anything Daxx says anyway lol.captain haddock is a blithering idiot.
I actually read in the bill posted on the internet- they will factor in your "expected lifespan", expected "productivity" over that lifespan (contributions to society), TAX RECORDS!!, handicaps, etc versus the cost of a certain treatment to decide if you will get that treatment or not. I don't remember the page and I'm not about to go hunt it down right now, but I can't imagine any concept more horrific.It's interesting that you consider that horrific. Do you know what actuaries are and what they do? They work for insurance companies. It is their job to aggregate data on you like your "expected lifespan" as computed from your lifestyle, your ability to pay based on your "productivity" and income, handicaps, pre-existing illnesses and other conditions, family histories of medical conditions and claims, credit records, and the cost of the treatment you are likely to require. When you apply for any type of insurance, whether that be health insurance, car insurance, and so forth, insurance companies run the numbers on you and your segment of society and charge you an appropriate amount based on the risk that you are to insure.
Definition from Wikipedia:You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation
Please explain how that applies to police, fire, etc.
Enforcement of laws, maintaining the peace, ensuring safety etc have nothing to do with socialism. Those are legitimate functions of government in society. Socialism is taking something from one person and giving it to another who didn't earn it under the threat of force- because it's not "fair" that one person should have something that another doesn't even if that person worked hard to earn or produce it.
I don't feel I have the in depth knowledge or the data required to make that call, but the best place to start is to try to get lots of results from lots of different studies. A quick Google gives me a few figures, but it's hard to figure out what is representative, let alone average.QuoteYou're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.This is prehaps the biggest problem with private healthcare currently in any nation. Out of interest could you point me in the direction of what you feel is an "average" policy? or maybe give me an average figure of how much people in the us pay for healthcare as i could figure out average policy from there? I can not find a definate figure ><
Once i have an idea i can compare it to the costs for an individual from England. Then compare what both cover for the money, and see if we can get some sort of conclusion for which more cost effective for the treatment they get.
I know this isn't the main part of the debate, but I feel like its pretty important. Actually, almost all those things are socialised benefits provided by the government by using taxpayer funds. Say someone breaks into your home, shoots you and sets your house on fire. You think the government should arrest the perpetrator, douse the fire, and then leave you to die? I don't see campaigns to privatise police forces or fire brigades. This is one of my major problems with libertarian philosophy. It is hugely inconsistent to call for the abolishment of 'socialist' governments which every day spends your money to make sure you don't get mugged, comes to your rescue if you do, saves you from fires, makes sure the cars you drive are within stringent safety regulations, maintains the roads you drive them on, provides you with subsidised public transport, maintains your telecommunications exchanges, bails out the shonky businesses you invested in when they go broke, makes provisions for the preservation of wildlife and national parks, builds and maintains vital infrastructure etc etc. And all with the publicly known motive of what is in the best interests of the people.Definition from Wikipedia:
The government is held accountable by the people who will not re-elect it if it does not do a good job (i know this is slightly theoretical - look at bush lol). In the privatisation of any public service, such as healthcare, who holds big business accountable? And what is big business' motive? Thats right, as you were so eager to proclaim; profit. It boils down to who you would rather trust; the democratically elected representatives of the people held accountable by the democratic proces, or the greedy big business moneygrubbers who are held accountable by nothing. The profit motive is an extremely unethical motive. Where does the name 'Ponzi Scheme' come from? Was it a government? Or a business tycoon?The problem is- there is really no choice in elections currently. We have the socialist party (democrats) and the socialist "lite" party (republicans). They have been in power so long they have made laws to prevent any real choice. Seriously- JOHN MCAIN was the best they could come up with?? :o :o :o You mentioned Bush jokingly, but he is a perfect example. Tell me- what is the difference between Bush and Obama? Other than Obama gutting the military and using Bush as a scapegoat for everything- the only difference is the speed with which the government is growing. For the first 6 years of Bush, while the republicans had control of congress there was at least an attempt to pretend they were being fiscally responsible- even though they werent they tried to maintain the facade. Then the democrats took over congress and Bush showed his true colors and the economy started to tank. Now with Obama in the White house the politicians, loby groups and special interests are on a drunken orgy stealing the US treasury stuffing cash into every orifice of their bodies as fast as it can be printed. All the while pointing at companies saying how evil and greedy THEY are.
Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was 133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.I'm not saying this debate shouldn't be had. I'm arguing the debate belongs to the states, not the federal government.
Also i will concede one point. I never factored in if the US goverment would put cost as its only factor and put in laws to stop people getting the treatment if it is costly for them. As i dont know much about how your laws get worded and how your court system works, ill leave it too those who know more.I actually read in the bill posted on the internet- they will factor in your "expected lifespan", expected "productivity" over that lifespan (contributions to society), TAX RECORDS!!, handicaps, etc versus the cost of a certain treatment to decide if you will get that treatment or not. I don't remember the page and I'm not about to go hunt it down right now, but I can't imagine any concept more horrific.
I would like to add i think your constitution is outdated. Personal point only, but its so old now that it causes just as many problems as it fixes or stops. Laws need to change to flux with society, not be constant.The constitution is not a law. It is a set of principles and limits that the government is supposed to operate under when passing laws. Principles can never be outdated. It was written and worded very carefully so that those principles would apply no matter what the circumstances. The authors knew human nature- that power corrupts. They set up three branches of government- the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The three branches are supposed to be antagonistic watchdogs over each other in order to prevent a government that will run roughshod over people's lives. Basically the federal government is supposed to be responsible for common defense, make sure that the states all play fair with other and protect citizens rights. That's what the Constitution says. It is not supposed to run every facet of our lives, not take over major industries, not "bail out" failed companies or banks, not dictate "education" to the states. The abandonment of the Constitution and growth of government started under Rosevelt, small steps, a little bit at a time and now is a raging behemoth that can't even get out of it's own way.
Off topic: i look forward to more questions/debates from you hamster. You have an grown up posting style, and you seem like a guy whos happy to chance his viewpoints as the evidence changes. Also you do know what you are on about. Last point: your right on the global warming bit. :)I enjoy a good debate, just wish I had a bit more time in the day to post in here more often :)
I actually read in the bill posted on the internet- they will factor in your "expected lifespan", expected "productivity" over that lifespan (contributions to society), TAX RECORDS!!, handicaps, etc versus the cost of a certain treatment to decide if you will get that treatment or not. I don't remember the page and I'm not about to go hunt it down right now, but I can't imagine any concept more horrific.Interesting, ill have a read of the bill myself see if i can find it.
The one question the "Tea Partiers" asked at the town halls they could get in to every congressman was- would you (the congressman) put yourself in the plan you're going to pass? The answer: the bill specifically prohibits them from joining that healthcare plan.
The day Obama comes out and says he will submit himself and his family to the plan he wants is the day I change my position on it.
Posted by: captain haddockThis is a fallacy of logic and a confusion of cause and effect. Just because someone does not want the constitution changed does not mean they do not like the changes, just that it should not be changed, if those changes are good or not. It does not! by proxy make them dislike the changes.
Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was 133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.
You're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.This is prehaps the biggest problem with private healthcare currently in any nation. Out of interest could you point me in the direction of what you feel is an "average" policy? or maybe give me an average figure of how much people in the us pay for healthcare as i could figure out average policy from there? I can not find a definate figure ><
As for your claims- According to surveys I've seen Canadians at best have an overall mediocer opinion of their healthcare system- compared to the US where most people have a high opinion of our system.From a 2007 survey from the Commonwealth Fund (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2007/Nov/International-Survey--U-S--Adults-Most-Likely-to-Report-Medical-Errors-and-Skip-Needed-Care-Due-to-C.aspx):
The HDI combines three dimensions:
* Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity
* Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
* Standard of living, as measured by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.
You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.Actually after thinking about things some more, I'm starting to be convinced the healthcare plan being proposed is more statist than socialist.
We can have this one of two ways based on your preferred interpretation of "socialist". Either, you can claim that those things (fire, police, military, road-building) are not socialist, in which case you cannot continue to call the public insurance option socialist because it requires about the same level of government intervention and public ownership; alternatively, you can claim that the bill's proposal is socialist because it involves redistribution of wealth to "those who do not deserve it", but you must then accept that these things are socialist as well because they involve redistribution of wealth through taxation in order to fund public projects, the benefits of which accrue to all, even those who did not earn it, and not just the taxpayers.
Why are they different? You are not offering up any convincing argument, and until then you can't have it both ways.
In my opinion he's not going for the best option, since the GOP are forcing the Democrats to make a compromise. Ideally you'd be looking at Universal Healthcare, not some half-hearted insurance-based option. Unfortunately that's not possible in the US's political situation right now because there are far too many crazies dominating the discussion. There is a public mandate for the democrats to push public healthcare, but they seem to be completely lacking in the spine department.LOLOLOL GOP is forcing something? Seriously, thanks for the laugh! The elephant in the room is the republican party has ZERO power in Washington right now. They don't even have enough seats to filibuster a vote. The problem is the democrats know this bill is BAD BAD BAD and they will get dumped out of office as fast as they got in. The whole blaming republicans thing is because they want to pressure enough republicans to call it a "bi-partisan" bill so their party won't take all the blame for it.
In my opinion he's not going for the best option, since the GOP are forcing the Democrats to make a compromise. Ideally you'd be looking at Universal Healthcare, not some half-hearted insurance-based option. Unfortunately that's not possible in the US's political situation right now because there are far too many crazies dominating the discussion. There is a public mandate for the democrats to push public healthcare, but they seem to be completely lacking in the spine department.There a lot of 'crazies' distracting from the truth (glen beckians). However the bill does propose that insurance companies can not refuse people for a pre-existing condition. Now here there IS a problem. If you can't be refused for a pre-existing condition, then why get insurance? You might as well drop out and only get insurance when you get sick. Imagine if the same were true for fire insurance. You'd wait till your house burned down (if it did at all), pay one month premium, drop out, and get a new house. If everyone could do that, then everyone would. Thus I see no incentive for anyone to have health insurance if the bill passes since they can just get it after a condition manifests.
I disagree, mostly because I think you're missing insurance covering accidents or emergencies, not just ongoing conditions. You presumably would be unable to backdate claims prior to taking out the policy.Pre-existing condition could be anything from cancer to aids to a bad back to a damaged spine. Back-dating fees might be impossible (probably, but still a maybe) but the real cost that insurance is for is for long term medication, ongoing conditions, and expensive treatments.
Opting out of insurance on that premise is gambling that you'll never get hurt, which is kinda stupid.Most people don't have accidents all that much, not nearly enough to warrant insurance (at least not for those of us who aren't in high risk situations like stunt-men and extreme sport athletes). It's only stupid if you stand to gain, save $$ on average, from insurance. If you stand to lose $ from insurance, ono average, then it's smart. Going back to the young paying the same as the old (paying for the old), it's clear that the young, for the most part, will stand to lose from this alone. How many accidents have your parents been in from 20-40? It requires quite a few to break even with insurance prices nowadays. It will require even more when the price goes up to pay for the old.
am i right in assumeing you think this is a "sneaky" way of introducing universal healthcare? your post hints at it.Yes, sneaky sneaky. But this has no correlation with my stance on how health care ought to work.
If so, can i ask what is wrong with manipulating people into going along with your idea if your idea is what is best for the people? People will always argue for what is best for them, if they have power over your decisions or the way people think, i dont see any other way of getting round them. Besides it is always best to keep the people on side, even if it is by manipulation (as long as your doing whats best of course. I would hear your thoughts on this.Hell no It's not O.K... Either people can follow the same logic and reason as you did to know that it's better for them, they are not amenable to reason, or it's not better for them. Assuming that it's true or false means there's no question and moreover there never was. That would be dogma. Assuming people aren't amenable to reason would mean that some people shouldn't have the right to vote but since you subscribe to democracy you can't follow that premise either. I think you're stuck with people care and are capable of understanding what is good for them.
I dont subscripe to democracy quite honestly, I prefer meritocracy as my form of ideal goverment style.I can't be your opponent as Personally I'd say the problem is at least partially democracy. And you're right about people. But I'd also say that those who are capable but not willing to inquire or listen and reflect deserve what they get. Problem is they don't just hurt themselves, they bring those around them down as well. Whatever the best solution is, it's non-trivial.
The idea that goverment is based on popularity (eg: democracy) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Also i do believe some people either dont care, or can not understand why something is good for them. Which is why they either will never change their view on a subject or change their view to agree with the last paper they read/what their best mate said is right ect without any evidence or even reasonable argument.
I would be pleased to hear the debate for popularity over merit. (the debate of who or what decides merit may be a big factor, if it is i will endevor to do my best to explain how i see it in my next post.)
I agree, if there is a long-term solution, it may well take too much time and or work to ever get implimented.Well It depends where we start form. Am I allowed to make major major changes to everything? Or just health care? Many problems can't be entirely fixed at all under any circumstances. We can only do the best we can. Sometimes we can't even do the best we can because other problems which have not yet been dealt with get in the way...
Can i ask how you do think healthcare should work?as you never mentioned earlier.
So the young will drop out since it's not, at all, a good deal for someone who is 20 to pay as much as someone who is 60. So the combination of all this will increase the price and decrease participants.This is dangerous guesswork. While im sure its correct in relation to many people. Very sure in fact, If i was in charge of the project i would be thinking about this as something to minimise, but i would not go so far as to say it will be a big problem as long as all the avenues are covered. Media "manipulation" alone could minimise any potential pitfalls such as this.
Eventually people will argue that freedom doesn't work (because of the consequences of these restrictions on freedom for the insurance companies). And then from this (false) premise they can logically argue that one needs socialized medicine.Firstly for that to be true we would need to be sure that your correct in all your assumptions. Also you are guessing at what people will do (while you may well be correct again). But you are correct in that if they argued from that specific standpoint, with those paramiters, that it would indeed be a fallacy of logic.
"Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered
by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private
plans?"
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/29 - 10/5/09 61 34 6
"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a
government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare
coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health
insurance plans?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/19-23/09 65 26 9That's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.I agree it is a good question. But it's a bad poll. The wording isn't the only factor in polling. You might look at that and say 65% of Americans want government run healthcare. I look at it and say 65% of people who watch CBS- a network that is pushing for healthcare and demonizing people who oppose it- want government healthcare. Fox does polls also and get the opposite numbers- I saw one that said 75% oppose, 20% for. The numbers are meaningless unless they come from a representative sample.Nonsense. It's a scientific poll commissioned by CBS and NYT. It was not a call-in or website "poll." Anyone who follows real polls knows who the major players are. Not to say that I endorse everything CBS/NYT polling does, but it's not what you said.
Actually after thinking about things some more, I'm starting to be convinced the healthcare plan being proposed is more statist than socialist.You're just making blind assertions now. I and other people have offered up reasons and criticism of your statements, and you're not actually addressing them. In the post that you quoted, I directly challenged you to provide some justification, and you ignored it. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so - you have to provide reasoning and evidence. I'm trying to be civil here, since I know how heated politics and religion discussions can get, but it's really quite rude just to ignore everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
That does not change the fact that police, fire, roads, etc are NOT socialism. I don't even understand how you could confuse a public service with redistribution of wealth.
Also- the FACT that government control of your lives from cradle to grave represented by the healthcare bill is unconstitutional hasn't stopped the debate at all. If it's so good for the people why doesn't the government attempt to change the Constitution through the mechanisms built into the Constitution for that change? Could it be that the majority of Americans oppose the facist government power grab and they know it would never even come close to flying? This whole debate is fueled on the government side by lobiests, special interests, mega-corporations that all stand to profit or gain power and opposed by the population. You can't find a single corporate sponsor for the Tea Party movement because it does not exist. It is 100% people fighting for their own future and their childrens benefit.If it were as unconstitutional as you say it is, why haven't you (or someone else) challenged them through the courts? Just asking, because you seem to believe so vehemently that this is true that it seems like you should be trying to redress the problem.
The Democrats in congress are absolutely spineless. Their majority isn't filibuster-proof yet because of "blue dog" Democrats, and because of this they won't even bother to try to push through legislation because they're scared of the filibuster. Everything is compromise, adding bits to the bill and removing others (the public option may be removed entirely) in order to get Republicans onside. If you want to come up with your own conjecture and speculation, that's fine, but it seems you're just being contrary right now. This isn't even worthy of discussion; it's partisan hackery and I don't care for it. Rather than discussing which party is doing what in congress, how about we actually talk about the issues?In my opinion he's not going for the best option, since the GOP are forcing the Democrats to make a compromise. Ideally you'd be looking at Universal Healthcare, not some half-hearted insurance-based option. Unfortunately that's not possible in the US's political situation right now because there are far too many crazies dominating the discussion. There is a public mandate for the democrats to push public healthcare, but they seem to be completely lacking in the spine department.LOLOLOL GOP is forcing something? Seriously, thanks for the laugh! The elephant in the room is the republican party has ZERO power in Washington right now. They don't even have enough seats to filibuster a vote. The problem is the democrats know this bill is BAD BAD BAD and they will get dumped out of office as fast as they got in. The whole blaming republicans thing is because they want to pressure enough republicans to call it a "bi-partisan" bill so their party won't take all the blame for it.
No doubt that is true. It would explain why the talking points are so similar. But I'd be happier if I had an answer all the same.This is crazy. Who do you get your information from? You say you don't watch Fox, but frankly I'm starting to doubt that claim.Most republican blogs, videos, and articles are all inter-related; they feed off eachother's 'articles' and relative persuasive biased arguments. That isn't to say that the ideology isn't capable of reaching the same conclusions (no matter how ridiculous) independently or using the same fallacies to reach them independently.
First- I'm not ignoring anybody. I'm just having trouble keeping up with this discussion between work, kids, and life. I'm doing the best I can in the time I have- but I'm primarily on this forum for entertainment because I enjoy the game Elements. this off-topic section is just extra and I'm simply stating my opinions and trying to discuss them with others. I admit I haven't even READ this whole thread yet.Sure, I understand that you don't have the time. I don't have the time to reply instantly to everything either. But the thing is, it looks to me like you're ignoring me because you're posting talking points that I've already talked about. It would probably be more productive for everyone if you took the time to read before posting, though, even if it means you're even slower. Otherwise, we're going to talk at cross-purposes and people are going to start getting upset. Sorry if I am getting a bit frustrated.
Second- I posted the definition of socialism and then expalined how those various services are not socialist and you blamed me of "picking over definitions" Nobody has given a single explanation as to how police or any of the other services mentioned are socialist. The claim was made, I countered with facts and I get attacked for using facts instead of debating said facts.Actually this must have been one of the parts of the thread that you missed then - I'll quote myself for you:
You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.To recap and expand: a lot of people consider a mixed government run under socialist principles to be synonymous with socialism, which is why they are claiming that they are. You appear to be using the stricter definition. However, you have used the word to refer to things which by your own definition are far from socialist. Does that make sense?
We can have this one of two ways based on your preferred interpretation of "socialist". Either, you can claim that those things (fire, police, military, road-building) are not socialist, in which case you cannot continue to call the public insurance option socialist because it requires about the same level of government intervention and public ownership; alternatively, you can claim that the bill's proposal is socialist because it involves redistribution of wealth to "those who do not deserve it", but you must then accept that these things are socialist as well because they involve redistribution of wealth through taxation in order to fund public projects, the benefits of which accrue to all, even those who did not earn it, and not just the taxpayers.
Why are they different? You are not offering up any convincing argument, and until then you can't have it both ways.
Third- I said I have changed my mind and don't think the healthcare proposals are socialist anymore. Isn't that the whole point of discussion/debate in the first place? I found a different model that fits what the healthcare bill represents and now I'm making blind assertations?The blind assertions refer to the second part of the statement where you say that some things "are NOT" socialist and then offer up a false dichotomy between the two, suggesting that public services are not redistribution of wealth (which they are, as I have explained previously). It's fine that you changed your mind on the definition you want to use, but you've not changed the problem I've identified with your arguments.
I looked at fivethirtyeight. It looks to me like a typical left wing blog not a polling organization.You should probably look into it rather than just dismissing it out of hand. It is probably the most reliable poll aggregator in the US. The guy who runs it cut his teeth on baseball analysis and then went on to become quite famous as someone who is very very good at prediction based on poll results. It's also a useful site for finding poll results and analysis - remember, statistical analysis done right is independent of political affiliation, regardless of the political conclusions drawn.
I don't understand the point you're making. Since fox covers it more and doesn't attack the protesters with sexual insults (tea baggers) means they are sponsoring it? I don't give a crap Rick Sanchez spent 7 minutes attacking a fox advertisement. His attack on the ad has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement or the healthcare debate. Maybe CNN is upset that Fox is ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHING them in ratings. (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/fox-news-scorching-rivals/#)Dismissing the sources, but not the claims. I'll explain my point more clearly then, rather on relying on you to read the links I posted.
Also- media matters is a george soros sponsored liberal smear website like huffington post and really can't be taken serious.
As for infowars, I have heard that guy interviewed before. A total conspiracy nut, but it was an entertaining interview!
You're absolutely right that this figure probably represents an overestimate of the actual incidence of the uninsured that will be covered by this plan - the point however remains the same. Whether it's 15% or 5% (and that's a figure which is set to grow as health insurance costs continue to rise, unemployment rises and growth rates slow) I still consider that unacceptable. Especially so since that represents something I haven't even touched on yet - the people who are insured but are paying far over the odds for care which doesn't cover all the bases and still leaves them open for massive financial penalties on claims.I think that unemployment is probably the biggest factor right now. But unemployment is not fixed by massive government programs that are going to tax the companies that provide jobs. But to your point- if you have a medical emergency you can go to any hospital and they are required by law to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. The same can't be said for routine doctor visits. If I sit on my but all day not working even if I am able and you go work hard every day- is it right for me to go see the doctor and make you pay for it just because you have the money?
The US only has the best care in the world if you can afford to pay for complete coverage at the best private hospitals - a situation which does not represent the majority of American citizens. The US's efficiency in terms of cost is massively lacking compared to most other industrialised countries; the US spends 15% of GDP on healthcare, far more than other countries, and doesn't experience a higher quality of life as we have already established. In terms of studies which directly target performance, the WHO ranks the US first in expenditure, but 37th in overall performance.Where do you get that 15% number? I've heard it's only 6%. Aso that WHO report scores the US down simply because the government doesn't pay the bills.
Furthermore, I don't think you have any evidence at all that the bill will reduce the effectiveness of US healthcare because of "cost becoming a factor". Of course, I'm not entirely sure exactly what point you are trying to make there, so it's possible you could be arguing for or against something else with that statement. If you could clarify that for me, that would be great.I can't give evidence for a system that doesn't exist in the US without comparing to other countries that have similar systems- but when I do that, you discount the point I made.
As captain haddock points out, that is in fact not correct. You see, if the debate is about the effectiveness of public healthcare, talking about constitutionality in the context in which you brought it up is what is known as ignoratio elenchi, or more colloquially a red herring. The constitutionality or otherwise of the public healthcare option actually has nothing to do with the effectiveness of public healthcare and making the case against public healthcare on the grounds of constitutionality is an attempt to preclude the debate on effectiveness.So discussing the proper method to address healthcare- that it's a matter for individual states and people themselves to decide- is not allowed in this debate simply because you think the best solution is a massive federal plan?
We can pass without commenting on that last part, I think.
So, if that's horrific, why wouldn't you want to reform the private insurance industry? At least the government has societal (and ostensibly personal) welfare as its primary concern, rather than profit margins. You could claim until you are blue in the face that the government wants to institute death panels or whatever other nonsense the talking heads are coming up with today, but what it's really doing is setting up a public insurance system. The above are the hallmarks of an insurance system, and if you find them horrific then you of all people should be in favour of healthcare reform. In fact, truly socialised healthcare doesn't discriminate anywhere near as much as a private insurer, so you should be in favour of it.First- profit in and of itself is not evil. Greed is. Most of the problems in this country are due to greed - Wall street demands companies maximize profit at the expense of all other concerns. But that's a whole other topic for debate. However you claim insurance companies discriminate based on financial considerations while the government won't? Are you serious? Every country that has a socialized system uses cost as a factor in determining what care is given. That isn't an improvement over what we currently have.
Suppose you, as an individual, go to an insurance company and ask for insurance. They will charge you as much as they can. This is fine, part of the free market, etc. Let's call this individual price X.Suppose you, as an individual, go see the doctor and just pay cash for routine visits. Suppose you pay out of pocket for any routine medications you use. You will look to save money any way you can, and you can then purchase insurance to cover actual emergencies. Calling healthcare coverage insurance is like saying your car insurance should pay for routine oil changes. If the market was changed to allow this- then costs would necessarily come down to what people are willing to pay. That is true free market. Calling a government "public option" free market is ridiculous- when that plan is specifically to allow drug companies, trial lawyers and other special interests to increase their profits simply because they backed a particular party in the elections.
Suppose you, as an individual, go to an internet service provider. They will also charge you as much as they can. Let us call this price Y.
Suppose you and your 19 employees, as a group, are going to use the same insurance company. Now 'as much as they can' changes. They will charge you less than 20X to make sure they get all of you. The ISP will also charge less than 20Y. The larger the group, the larger the change in 'as much as they can'. So in general the largest group gets the best deal. The 'public option' would only be a large group (the public) shopping for group rates from private insurers. The only public $ used on the 'public option' would be for administration fees. Private insurers still pay the doctors, and anyone using the public option still pays for the insurance, albeit at a discount. But the whole process is voluntary for all participants. It's entirely free market orientated.
Also you say the ruling parties have made laws to prevent choice, while off topic, I would like to point out that The constitution was intended to do that so you have never really had any choice. Definately you have more now than then.That's a particularly cynical view of the Constitution there. If you read it, it clearly was written with the aim of establishing a country where people were free to live their lives without the government dictating every facet of those lives. There was wording specifically inserted to eventually eliminate slavery. If you look at the realities of the time- during the revolutionary war- the authors knew they needed the support of all 13 colonies, even the ones which allowed slaves, so even though they wanted to they could not say slavery is illegal. Instead they established a country built on individual rights and freedom which was a necessary first step to eliminating the practice. And yes- as written it did not lay out a democracy either. They also knew they could not address every single issue at the time which is why there is a process built into the constitution allowing for amendments.
Evidence: Their were three main aims of the revolution for the monied class at the time, Self rule obviously but also to protect their interests in slavery (which was institutionalized) and also to claim more land which the British goverment had recently outlawed.
Originally the Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.
At first i believe you had to have a certain ammount of land (i forget how much) before you were allowed to vote.The reason this changed was that the constitution allowed each state to choose who could vote. So over time white males gained the right to vote, and so on. AT this time you had a republic.
Since the seventeenth ammendment U.S. Senaters (sp?) have been elected directly by the voters.
So you have since then had a democratic(or constitutional depending on what your view is)-republic. (As a law grad i should know this really...but im really bad with dates so.anyone remember the year this came into force?)
Think i got all that right. Any americans are welcome to point out if anything i just said was a lot of old horse manure :)
Polls are very dependent on wording. It's best to give the exact question wording so we can interpret what the responses mean.I agree it is a good question. But it's a bad poll. The wording isn't the only factor in polling. You might look at that and say 65% of Americans want government run healthcare. I look at it and say 65% of people who watch CBS- a network that is pushing for healthcare and demonizing people who oppose it- want government healthcare. Fox does polls also and get the opposite numbers- I saw one that said 75% oppose, 20% for. The numbers are meaningless unless they come from a representative sample.
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 19-23, 2009:Code: [Select]"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone aThat's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.
government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare
coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health
insurance plans?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/19-23/09 65 26 9
They won't pass the bill until there's something in there they can themselves benefit from, just like every other bill. The only afraid people I see are the people in the town halls, and the writer of the article. He's also clearly non-partisan as he says ' the stimulus package failed to help jobs grow' completely ignoring that it wasn't designed for that in the short term, it was designed to put a baindaid on the crumbling world economy. And it did.That was back in March and non-factual figures to begin with.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/03/the_stimulus_pa.html
I dont subscripe to democracy quite honestly, I prefer meritocracy as my form of ideal goverment style.The US is not and has never been a democracy despite what they teach in schools. It most resembles a republic (though not perfectly that either). But the common usage term is democracy so IIWII.
The idea that goverment is based on popularity (eg: democracy) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Also i do believe some people either dont care, or can not understand why something is good for them. Which is why they either will never change their view on a subject or change their view to agree with the last paper they read/what their best mate said is right ect without any evidence or even reasonable argument.
I would be pleased to hear the debate for popularity over merit. (the debate of who or what decides merit may be a big factor, if it is i will endevor to do my best to explain how i see it in my next post.)
First- I'm not ignoring anybody. I'm just having trouble keeping up with this discussion between work, kids, and life. I'm doing the best I can in the time I have- but I'm primarily on this forum for entertainment because I enjoy the game Elements. this off-topic section is just extra and I'm simply stating my opinions and trying to discuss them with others. I admit I haven't even READ this whole thread yet.Actually after thinking about things some more, I'm starting to be convinced the healthcare plan being proposed is more statist than socialist.You're just making blind assertions now. I and other people have offered up reasons and criticism of your statements, and you're not actually addressing them. In the post that you quoted, I directly challenged you to provide some justification, and you ignored it. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so - you have to provide reasoning and evidence. I'm trying to be civil here, since I know how heated politics and religion discussions can get, but it's really quite rude just to ignore everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
That does not change the fact that police, fire, roads, etc are NOT socialism. I don't even understand how you could confuse a public service with redistribution of wealth.
If it were as unconstitutional as you say it is, why haven't you (or someone else) challenged them through the courts? Just asking, because you seem to believe so vehemently that this is true that it seems like you should be trying to redress the problem.Because the supreme court (after Rosevelt packed it with a bunch of liberal justices) ruled in a case that no citizen has the "standing" to sue the government for simply violating the constitution. That, in my opinion, Is whaT has completely gutted the Constitution of any relevence other than a tool for politicians to pay lip service to while passing laws clearly in violation of it. But that's a totally different discussion.
Polls suggest that a majority of Americans are not against healthcare reform, potentially with up to three quarters backing a public option. This includes a majority of doctors. Check out fivethirtyeight and other trustworthy polling sites for examples.I looked at fivethirtyeight. It looks to me like a typical left wing blog not a polling organization. I read a Rasmussen poll last week that shows Americans opposing government healthcare 47%, 38% for- and that was with 45% democrats, 30% independent and 25% republicans surveyed. You have to subscribe to see the full report to get the demographic numbers they used and I don't have a subscription- but the local morning radio host does and read that. Also, where do you get this majority of doctors? Must doctors don't even take new medicare/medicaid patients- unless you've already been a patient of theirs because those government plans only pay them 40 cents on the dollar what the insurance companies pay. They lose money after paying the nurse to take blood pressure/supplies/malpractice insurance for routine visits.
Corporate sponsor for the Tea Party movement? Fox News. It's an astroturfing campaign, pure and simple.I don't understand the point you're making. Since fox covers it more and doesn't attack the protesters with sexual insults (tea baggers) means they are sponsoring it? I don't give a crap Rick Sanchez spent 7 minutes attacking a fox advertisement. His attack on the ad has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement or the healthcare debate. Maybe CNN is upset that Fox is ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHING them in ratings. (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/fox-news-scorching-rivals/#)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/Fox_producer_rallied_tea_party_protesters.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21275.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904090038?f=h_latest
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d12-Video--Fox-News-trying-desperately-to-hype-912-Tea-Party-while-ignoring-conflict-of-interest
http://www.infowars.com/media-bias-tea-party-a-fox-news-affair/ <- you might like that last one, he seems to be as anti-media as you claim to be
The Democrats in congress are absolutely spineless. Their majority isn't filibuster-proof yet because of "blue dog" Democrats, and because of this they won't even bother to try to push through legislation because they're scared of the filibuster. Everything is compromise, adding bits to the bill and removing others (the public option may be removed entirely) in order to get Republicans onside. If you want to come up with your own conjecture and speculation, that's fine, but it seems you're just being contrary right now. This isn't even worthy of discussion; it's partisan hackery and I don't care for it. Rather than discussing which party is doing what in congress, how about we actually talk about the issues?So you're saying even a good number of democrat politicians don't want this? I actually agree with you. It's only the extremist liberals who are pushing for it, many others are just toeing the party line, and some don't support it at all.
(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/5/8/saupload_purchasing_power.png)And the winner of the most impressive graph on the internet award, Uzra!
First- I'm not ignoring anybody.
This is crazy. Who do you get your information from? You say you don't watch Fox, but frankly I'm starting to doubt that claim.Most republican blogs, videos, and articles are all inter-related; they feed off eachother's 'articles' and relative persuasive biased arguments. That isn't to say that the ideology isn't capable of reaching the same conclusions (no matter how ridiculous) independently or using the same fallacies to reach them independently.
Just a quick question...They won't pass the bill until there's something in there they can themselves benefit from, just like every other bill. The only afraid people I see are the people in the town halls, and the writer of the article. He's also clearly non-partisan as he says ' the stimulus package failed to help jobs grow' completely ignoring that it wasn't designed for that in the short term, it was designed to put a baindaid on the crumbling world economy. And it did.
If this healthcare bill is so good for us--
What are they afraid of?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Congressional-leaders-fight-against-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html
The US is not and has never been a democracy despite what they teach in schools. It most resembles a republic (though not perfectly that either). But the common usage term is democracy so IIWII.I pointed this out earlier, I know you said you have not read this whole thread so ill just say i never said it was :P we went off on a tangent at that point lol.
My question for you is what if the "Meritocracy" you are advocating had a leader whose decided things are good for you that you found despicable? Obviously since he would smarter than you- his positions have more "merit". Would you change your opinions or disagree with him just because with no reasonable argument? (probably best to start a new thread for this than continue it here)No. No person who can decide anything without reasonable evidence (or with the best they can get, depending on circumstances) could ever be described as intelligent. Smart maybe, but not intelligent. There is a subtle difference there. Smart people can spell, do maths or memorise ect (to give the most obvious examples), Intelligent people can collate data, see all sides of an argument and can go into any debate from any side without prejudice to come to a decision that appears to be correct from what they know after all the evidence is presented. Also most importantly can UNDERSTAND. A lot of smart people just know, they dont understand what they know.
Polls are very dependent on wording. It's best to give the exact question wording so we can interpret what the responses mean.I agree. Good question.
That's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.
The question I quoted is never mentioned in that article.Polls are very dependent on wording. It's best to give the exact question wording so we can interpret what the responses mean.Sorry for bringing up this old post again, but I found out that question itself is inherently biased to support obamacare and is an EXTREMELY biased question. I know I had previously said I agreed it was fair but I learned something here!
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 19-23, 2009:Code: [Select]"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone aThat's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.
government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare
coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health
insurance plans?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/19-23/09 65 26 9
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/pollsters_push_people_to_accep.html
But about half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills. People on the whole don't save the money towards some fund to pay for hypothetical medical expenses if they don't buy insurance, they spend that money on something else instead. Young people especially have much lower rates of saving than the rest of the population - in that case people aren't making a decision based on whether it's cheaper on average to save or to pay for insurance, they're just gambling on the event occurring or not. In the case you're suggesting, they're going to be hit by large fees, and will probably have to pay massive amounts of money to get onto a high-risk plan in order to pay those fees. It doesn't make much financial sense.Bringing bankruptcies into this debate is what you call a red-herring. Who cares? In a free society people should be free to fail as well as scuueed. If they choose to not get insurance its on them, not society.
The biggest problem, either way, is with the cost of insurance - the other way to increase coverage is to reduce price, since that way more people will be able to afford it. Unfortunately without some sort of public option there's no incentive for the insurers to be more competitive.That's just simply not true. A public option will not reduce costs except through limiting services. One suggestion I've heard that will truly lower costs through capitalism- allow tax free health savings accounts. People can put (for example) $50 a week into a tax free savings account and use that for their routine services. When they have to pay themselves they will seek out more economical services- forcing the market to lower prices. Then they can purchase insurance at a greatly reduced cost that would cover emergencies. Unfortunately the drug companies and other special interests that came up with this public option to increase their profits would never give campaign contributions to a candidate that supporst such a system.
On the one hand, doctors in general will do whatever helps them the most. Which could range from unnecessary tests and treatments to accepting bribes from pharmaceutical companies to prescribe more and more drugs even when not necessary. On the same hand, insurance companies are out to make money, not to lose money. For that to happen more money has to go into the insurance company than goes out. In this sense it's not at all different from a lottery or casino game. A lottery secures this by setting the odds in their favor. Insurance companies can't set the odds but since the 'pay outs' and 'odds' for each condition are relatively fixed they need only set the prices high enough for the game to be in their favor (and it must be in their favor or they'd go out of business). Do we say it's wiser to play the lottery 'just in case'? Why do we say it's better to have insurance 'just in case' if in both cases the game is, and must be, fundamentally rigged?Those "unnecessary" tests you accuse doctors of are simply for self-defense. If they don't make a patient take a test and it turns out the patient has some rare .001% chance disease and it could have been detected with a $5000 test then the doctor will be sued for malpractice, his malpractice rates will go up, and lawyers and the malpractice insurance insurance companies will all get rich. Why do you think the insurance industry and trial lawyers want a system where all these "unnecessary" tests will be refused by a government bureaucrat? By law, health insurance can not refuse a test ordered by a doctor- but a "public option" can.
New UN HDI is out today, contains data from 2007.I don't see what migration has to do with healthcare? And the US public school system is in need of a major overhaul when almost half the students who manage to graduate high school can only read at a 7th grade level.
I'm not a big fan of debates for the debates sake. I like debates in which the participants are interested in what the data and ideas mean/suggest/contradict/conclude. I don't care for them at all when the participants are interested in conclusions and then try show why their conclusion is better than the opponents' conclusion without the willingness to say 'I could be wrong'. Very dogmatic, boring, and devoid of the honesty by definition. I can not, will not, pretend to be participating in the former. Have fun.This is more of an idealogical discussion than a traditional debate. It's too bad if you don't want to continue- I actually agreed with some of your points even if I reached that conclusion from a different perspective!
Polls are very dependent on wording. It's best to give the exact question wording so we can interpret what the responses mean.Sorry for bringing up this old post again, but I found out that question itself is inherently biased to support obamacare and is an EXTREMELY biased question. I know I had previously said I agreed it was fair but I learned something here!
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 19-23, 2009:Code: [Select]"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone aThat's what I consider a good question. No mention of Democrats, Republicans, Obama, etc. Very clear about government's involvement. Gives the concrete example of Medicare, which is familiar to many people.
government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare
coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health
insurance plans?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
9/19-23/09 65 26 9
Evil Hamster, why are you against choice and competition? Because you know that private insurance companies will lose. They are the real death panels. They have been killing people for a long time with claim denials and rescissions.Choice and competition? Because what the government proposes is- You can't choose there will be no competition allowed. You're using special interest created, poll tested buzzwords. I agree our system is not perfect. There is too much government regulation and too many mega corporations taking choice away from the people. You don't fix that by government taking over and guaranteeing even more inflated profits to the mega corporations. You fix it by minimizing government and corporations ability to distort the free market- give the power back to the people not take it away.
Over time, people may increasingly choose the public option, if it provides better coverage and/or cheaper premiums. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are reflexively anti-government and worship the market like a fundamentalist. On the other hand, it's possible that private insurance companies will actually improve. If that happens, fine, they will have earned the right to survive. If they continue to do what they are doing right now, they deserve to go out of business.
That clip of Robert Reich is pure sarcasm on his part. I would be curious to see a transcript of the whole speech. I have a pretty good idea of what he advocates.
Evil Hamster, you are all over the place. You claim to be against mega-corporations and want even more deregulation. Sorry, but that's contradictory. When corporations started becoming mega-corps in the 19th Century, there was very little regulation. Then Teddy Roosevelt and Progressives like the Muckrakers came after them. The result was regulation. The notion that deregulation would result in a nation dominated by small businesses is absurd.I'm not all over the place. I believe the government's role in the economy should be limited to ensuring the free market functions like it's supposed to. That would involve anti-trust laws and enforcement of the criminal code. The problem with existing regulations is they benefit the mega-corporations- after all they were written by corporate lawyers for the politicians to put their names on while they take millions of dollars in bribes to vote for them. And BOTH parties are guilty in this. So are we voters who keep electing politicians who bring the most pork to their districts- or go vote blindly for a particular party/politicians without looking at their histories or positions.
Now, it is true that mega-corps feed at the government trough and get larger as a result. That's bad. It's true that they have private profits and socialized losses. That's bad. Both parties participate in this state of affairs, and I condemn both parties for it.
I say, if a corporation is going to fail, one of two things should happen. Either (1) let it fail. Or (2) if it is so big that its failure would bring down the whole economy, nationalize it (at least temporarily). Then in the future, corporations should not be allowed to become too big to fail. Enforce anti-trust laws.
Ayn Rand.I agree with that. Some people are attempting to hijack the conservative movement with religion.
Most DEMOCRAT blogs, videos, and articles are all inter-related; they feed off eachother's 'articles' and relative persuasive biased arguments. That isn't to say that the ideology isn't capable of reaching the same conclusions (no matter how ridiculous) independently or using the same fallacies to reach them independently.Fixed.
A couple of videos from Sick for Profit:As I've been told many times by both Daxx and yourself anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. Not even when it's packaged in a dramatic film sponsored by a political party designed to scare people into giving them power.
No. No person who can decide anything without reasonable evidence (or with the best they can get, depending on circumstances) could ever be described as intelligent. Smart maybe, but not intelligent. There is a subtle difference there. Smart people can spell, do maths or memorise ect (to give the most obvious examples), Intelligent people can collate data, see all sides of an argument and can go into any debate from any side without prejudice to come to a decision that appears to be correct from what they know after all the evidence is presented. Also most importantly can UNDERSTAND. A lot of smart people just know, they dont understand what they know.Maybe you should start a thread for this- could be an interesting debate :)
I dont believe in perfection, Noone can always be right. All we can hope for is to get as close as we can to picking people who will choose the path they think is best not for them, but for all.
What i have wrote doesnt do what i think justice really but it conveys the point, i hope reasonably well. There is a lot missing, but i think we would need a full forum to debate such political ideas well, with all the small points to pull over Tongue
To recap and expand: a lot of people consider a mixed government run under socialist principles to be synonymous with socialism, which is why they are claiming that they are. You appear to be using the stricter definition. However, you have used the word to refer to things which by your own definition are far from socialist. Does that make sense?So you're saying that I can't use the definition of socialism to explain the difference between governemnt services which are and are not socialist? But others can just claim police and post office and other examples are socialist with no basis for that claim and it's OK? If you disagree explain the difference instead of attacking the argument. I don't recall anybody explaining how the examples given are socialist- if I missed it, I apologize please repeat and we can discuss from here.
You should probably look into it rather than just dismissing it out of hand. It is probably the most reliable poll aggregator in the US. The guy who runs it cut his teeth on baseball analysis and then went on to become quite famous as someone who is very very good at prediction based on poll results. It's also a useful site for finding poll results and analysis - remember, statistical analysis done right is independent of political affiliation, regardless of the political conclusions drawn.You're right. I don't know the history of that site, I've never even heard of it before. However if he always reaches a conclusion that supports a particular agenda it would seem to me to indicate a bias.
The 9/12 movement was started and promoted by Glenn Beck.That's such a blatant lie I don't even know where to start.
It was heavily promoted by Fox News. The Tea Party movement was heavily promoted by Fox to the point where they started to promote their own events.I have heard it was covered more by them than the other networks. That doesn't prove anything. It's a free country if they choose to cover it good for them.
Fox repeatedly over-reported the number of attendees based on picking and choosing eyewitness estimates.And the other networks all severely under-reported the number of people who attended. I guess it depends on who you trust.
There have been Fox producers caught on tape getting the crowds going. The movement primarily consists of easily-led people who watch Fox, listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and read the Drudge Report, all of whom have been heavily promoting the events with no regard for journalistic detachment.As opposed to the easily led people who watch CNN, ABC, NBS and CBS who all under-reported the event with no regard for journalistic integrity? There's a reason their ratings are plumeting. The purpose of the media in this country is to criticize and watchdog over the government not promote and support it.
Fox are creating news, not reporting it. I'm not surprised that Fox get more viewers than anyone else - taking the stance that news is entertainment, journalistic integrity and the truth be damned, they're going to appeal more to viewers who don't really care about the minutae of any given situation but are going to pay attention when they are being told things they want to hear. It's a business decision, pure and simple, and it's the reason MSNBC chose to head more sharply leftwards - after seeing how successful Fox was being by aligning itself with a political ideology rather than at least pretending to be objective. Whether or not you watch Fox, they are a major vehicle for the neoconservative agenda, from creating talking points, to distortions, to untruths, and even "grassroots" political movements whole cloth.Where the hell do you get all this? I canceled my cable 18 months ago because there wasn't anything worth watching. I didn't even have Fox- they were in the $100 a month cable plan, while CNN was in the $50 a month plan I did have. I was so disgusted by CNN's blatant not even attempting to be balanced coverage I stopped watching. When I was unemployed I watched Good morning America occasionally- I remember specifically two days- one day they interviewed a republican I don't remember, but they asked the most vicious questions imaginable. The next day they interviewed Nancy Pelosi and it was all "Youre a grandmother" video of her shopping for groceries and questions like "some people are calling you an extremist how do you respond". It was BS and I stopped watching there. But I suppose to you that would be fair.
That Post article has some good ideas. And neither am I defending the current bill as being the solution to every problem. In fact, I think it is deeply flawed as a method of reform solely because it does not make any actual progress beyond a private insurance system. But it is my belief that a properly constructed bill which would create a public option would be beneficial for the US, and a good start down the road to rejoining the rest of the industrialised world. I'm still not sure why you're opposed to that concept.Rejoin in what? Our system is far better. Your system benefits from the advances that can only be made in a free market so you shouldn't want us to change.
I've asked you at least 3 times in this thread if public school is a socialist program. I've also asked you for a definition of a legitimate government program that doesn't include looking at history or referencing anything i.e some rule that would let us know what's legitimate and what is not without asking for each and every single one (A program is socialist if it has the properties A, B, and/or C, where A,B and C are not referencing a list of programs). Please don't tell me where you stand on school. Instead give me the rule so that I would know for all possible programs (including school). Thank you.I have answered that. I gave the definition of socialism and explained using the examples you and others gave are or are not socialist programs. Government exists to tax everybody and provide certain services- explain to me how any of those services are socialist, don't just claim they are without any support then criticize me for providing examples that contradict you.
Wow, this is going to demand quite a response. I'll give it a go tomorrow, hopefully.I'm not a big fan of debates for the debates sake. I like debates in which the participants are interested in what the data and ideas mean/suggest/contradict/conclude. I don't care for them at all when the participants are interested in conclusions and then try show why their conclusion is better than the opponents' conclusion without the willingness to say 'I could be wrong'. Very dogmatic, boring, and devoid of the honesty by definition. I can not, will not, pretend to be participating in the former. Have fun.
As far as my understanding of the plan runs, it is the government actually getting involved in the free market by purchasing insurance on the free market and selling it to people.Do you have a source? Your description does not fit my understanding of the public option.
I think that unemployment is probably the biggest factor right now. But unemployment is not fixed by massive government programs that are going to tax the companies that provide jobs.This is an extreme tangent. I think this should be split off into a new thread if it needs further discussion.
But to your point- if you have a medical emergency you can go to any hospital and they are required by law to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. The same can't be said for routine doctor visits. If I sit on my but all day not working even if I am able and you go work hard every day- is it right for me to go see the doctor and make you pay for it just because you have the money?There are two distinct issues here. The first is the effectiveness of emergency vs preventative care. The second is the moral issue surrounding healthcare.
Where do you get that 15% number? I've heard it's only 6%.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_spending The graph to the right is from that article. Click to see it in a large scale, it neatly arranges countries by spending as a percentage of GDP. Note that "socialist" countries with public healthcare provision spend far less and yet according to most estimates have a better quality of life. The article references several estimates, including http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1 http://www.who.int/entity/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf Calculating by hand: The figure for healthcare spending were to $2,260,000,000,000 (2.26 trillion) in 2007. GDP in 2007 was $13,840,000,000,000 (13.84 trillion). Dividing GDP by healthcare spending comes out to about 6.1 (which is probably where you heard the incorrect statistic), but this is about one sixth, which is about 16%. Other estimates actually put it higher than that for more recent years (up to 17% or above in some cases), given that those statistics come from two years ago and insurance prices are rising faster than your current economic growth rate, but I decided to use the more concrete estimate where we have the hard data. I would however expect the estimates for this year to be borne out, since there is no reason to suspect that healthcare spending would not increase at previous rates. | (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png/400px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png) |
So discussing the proper method to address healthcare- that it's a matter for individual states and people themselves to decide- is not allowed in this debate simply because you think the best solution is a massive federal plan?No. I was suggesting that circumventing the discussion by claiming that it is unconstitutional is prohibiting the (quite reasonable) idea that a federally provided public healthcare insurance option would be a good solution, but that's not why it isn't appropriate for discussion here. If you consider the welfare of your countrymen to be less of a concern than blinding following one particular interpretation of a piece of paper, that's fine and you're entitled to that opinion, but when you initiate a discussion on this forum about a federal plan you should discuss the federal plan on its own merits. The consititutionality is a separate issue (which probably demands its own thread) - there's no reason why it cannot be discussed elsewhere, but it is disingenuous and a red herring to bring it up in the context of this discussion.
First- profit in and of itself is not evil. Greed is. Most of the problems in this country are due to greed - Wall street demands companies maximize profit at the expense of all other concerns. But that's a whole other topic for debate. However you claim insurance companies discriminate based on financial considerations while the government won't? Are you serious? Every country that has a socialized system uses cost as a factor in determining what care is given. That isn't an improvement over what we currently have.Actually, what I said is that public plans where welfare maximisation is the target discriminate less than the free market. I didn't say the government would not discriminate, but that actual provision would be less discriminatory than in the private sector alone.
| (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/EXTBENE.jpg) | This graph (which is not perfect, but it will have to do since I don't have an image editor to hand right now) explains how economists view the problem of social vs private returns. For the moment ignore the shape of the supply line and ignore the fact that this graph isn't dynamic. It is socially optimal to be at output level Qs rather than Qp, and that is the output level that the social planner is aiming for when instituting public provision. Every unit of market quantity to the right of each of those points is a part of the market that is being discriminated against (by being priced out of the market). At Qp, more of the market is being discriminated against than at Qs and the difference between the two outcomes is the distance between the two. It is very simple mathematics that dictates this outcome. What this means is that the private sector inherently discriminates more than the public sector when the social equilibrium suggests that goods are underprovided (as is typically the case when healthcare is left to the private sector alone). When I talk about actuaries making decisions on who to provide healthcare to based on demographics and market segmentation, this is how it is represented from an economic perspective. The private sector is based on an insurance model - they can maximise profit by divesting themselves of as much risk as possible (I could explain why this is true if you like, but it's so obvious I shouldn't have to) and so therefore the highest risk customers are denied coverage either by being priced out of the market or by being flat out denied. This is a natural outcome of the way their business model works, and it's a completely reasonable thing for them to do. However, this does not mean it provides the best coverage from a social perspective. |
There was a doctor interviewed on the local morning radio show here this morning. He said that the US has 3 times as many MRI machines per capita than both Canada and the UK. Those machines are tremendously expensive and a socialized systems loathe spending the money where in a for-profit system they are just capital investments- that will eventually return a profit so it makes buisiness sense to purchase them. Yes that's only ONE example of one facet of healthcare but it highlights the differences in principle and philosophy.Actually that has nothing to do with the bill. That is a business decision made by healthcare providers, not by health insurance providers. The public insurance option would not actually change that in any way, since the healthcare providers would actually be paid the same, and in the same way. This is the fundamental disconnect I feel that you and others are having over this bill - it does not change healthcare provision, only the way it is paid for. There is absolutely no reason why this bill would lead to fewer MRI machines, to use your example.
Suppose you, as an individual, go see the doctor and just pay cash for routine visits. Suppose you pay out of pocket for any routine medications you use. You will look to save money any way you can, and you can then purchase insurance to cover actual emergencies. Calling healthcare coverage insurance is like saying your car insurance should pay for routine oil changes.See above where I talk about preventative care.
If the market was changed to allow this- then costs would necessarily come down to what people are willing to pay. That is true free market.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you can already do this if you want. It's a terribly stupid idea, but you could if you wanted. Prices are, of course, still rising faster than the growth rate.
Calling a government "public option" free market is ridiculous- when that plan is specifically to allow drug companies, trial lawyers and other special interests to increase their profits simply because they backed a particular party in the elections.As far as my understanding of the plan runs, it is the government actually getting involved in the free market by purchasing insurance on the free market and selling it to people. They can do this cheaply because on the free market they have purchasing power, and run into economies of scale. In what sense is this deviating from a free-market solution? There is no public funding aside from the administration of the purchasing, so where is the socialism? The rest sounds like partisan nonsense. Special interests will always fight - plenty against the bill, some for, and some trying to change the bill in order to get more out of it. Characterising the bill as being solely designed to work for the special interests is actually just plain disingenuous.
Aha, except it is not a red herring and it is in fact a societal problem. The US prides itself on social mobility, but unfortunately just as success helps other people, failure hurts them. Bankruptcies occuring is an indication of negative externalities; repeated failure of mortgages, for example, means a massive drop in aggregate demand (and therefore income) for everyone due to the circular flow of income. You could also characterise it as a moral imperative if you subscribed to that sort of thing.Quote from: DaxxBut about half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills. People on the whole don't save the money towards some fund to pay for hypothetical medical expenses if they don't buy insurance, they spend that money on something else instead. Young people especially have much lower rates of saving than the rest of the population - in that case people aren't making a decision based on whether it's cheaper on average to save or to pay for insurance, they're just gambling on the event occurring or not. In the case you're suggesting, they're going to be hit by large fees, and will probably have to pay massive amounts of money to get onto a high-risk plan in order to pay those fees. It doesn't make much financial sense.Bringing bankruptcies into this debate is what you call a red-herring. Who cares? In a free society people should be free to fail as well as scuueed. If they choose to not get insurance its on them, not society.
A public option will not reduce costs except through limiting services.Actually a public option will do no such thing because it is not about services, it is about healthcare insurance payment not healthcare provision. See above. Perhaps you are confusing the public option with a single-payer nationalised health service?
I have answered that. I gave the definition of socialism and explained using the examples you and others gave are or are not socialist programs. Government exists to tax everybody and provide certain services- explain to me how any of those services are socialist, don't just claim they are without any support then criticize me for providing examples that contradict you.
No, because you're not actually explaining the difference at all. I've been through this on at least five posts now, but there is no actual ideological dichotomy that is not completely arbitrary. Since you've asked me to, I'll repeat myself again - this is the third time I have posted this exact paragraph. This time I'll take it out of the quote box so it's less likely that it'll get skipped over.Quote from: DaxxTo recap and expand: a lot of people consider a mixed government run under socialist principles to be synonymous with socialism, which is why they are claiming that they are. You appear to be using the stricter definition. However, you have used the word to refer to things which by your own definition are far from socialist. Does that make sense?So you're saying that I can't use the definition of socialism to explain the difference between governemnt services which are and are not socialist? But others can just claim police and post office and other examples are socialist with no basis for that claim and it's OK? If you disagree explain the difference instead of attacking the argument. I don't recall anybody explaining how the examples given are socialist- if I missed it, I apologize please repeat and we can discuss from here.
You're right. I don't know the history of that site, I've never even heard of it before. However if he always reaches a conclusion that supports a particular agenda it would seem to me to indicate a bias."Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Oh, come on. At least pretend you're not just being contrary for the sake of it.Quote from: DaxxThe 9/12 movement was started and promoted by Glenn Beck.That's such a blatant lie I don't even know where to start.
The purpose of the media in this country is to criticize and watchdog over the government not promote and support it.You're absolutely right that the media should be critical of the government. The key word being critical, not oppositional. Ironically, it's exactly the complaint that everyone had about Fox News during Bush's administration. Fox of course is not actually a watchdog of any meaningful kind, but simply represents a right-wing partisan perspective. None of the major American news outlets are in any way useful for news - they know their market and it is entertainment (or at best infotainment). Holding the administration accountable for mistakes and failures is laudable. Being contrary to the administration for the sake of satisfying your partisan viewership is not the same thing.
Rejoin in what? Our system is far better. Your system benefits from the advances that can only be made in a free market so you shouldn't want us to change.Quite aside from repeated proofs given that your system is not in fact "better", and challenges to provide proof that it is in fact your method of health insurance coverage that is responsible for medical innovation that have come up empty, innovation in medial technology has little to do with how healthcare is paid for, as I have already pointed out in this post (http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,567.msg6770#msg6770).
Choice and competition? Because what the government proposes is- You can't choose there will be no competition allowed. You're using special interest created, poll tested buzzwords. I agree our system is not perfect. There is too much government regulation and too many mega corporations taking choice away from the people. You don't fix that by government taking over and guaranteeing even more inflated profits to the mega corporations. You fix it by minimizing government and corporations ability to distort the free market- give the power back to the people not take it away.The fallacy that what they are proposing is "an option" is ridiculous. Even if it tried, how could an insurance company possibly compete with the government? The government sets the rules. The government has unlimited funds. The government only pays doctors 40% of what an insurance company will for the exact same service. I'm sure the cost to the taxpayer will be more due to corruption and inefficiency inherent in every government program.[/quote]
The 9/12 movement was started and promoted by Glenn Beck.That much is absolutely true. But the march that happened on 9/12 was only composed in small part of the actual participants in Beck's 9/12 movement. There were many, many groups, and many individuals -- my parents included -- who participated without any specific interest in the 9/12 movement. My mother, for example, hates Glenn Beck and Fox News with an unabated passion, but she believes that, in her words "trying to spend yourself out of a recession is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handle."
In what sense is this deviating from a free-market solution?In the sense that the government will fine your a$$ thousands of dollars for not purchasing the health care that they demand you have. That may be a market, but it sure ain't free.
But about half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills.See the above article. If health care expenses were treated like any other rational kind of expense -- paid for out of pocket, or with credit or savings for significant expenses, and with health 'insurance' only used for what every other kind of insurance -- extreme emergencies -- medical costs would drop to the reasonable levels that traditional supply-and-demand would force them to. Only because of the occult nature of pricing and payment - created by the health insurance system - is health care noticably more expensive here than elsewhere.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act (http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf), p. 120:I was looking through a couple of pages on the various different bills and I think that might have been deprecated. I'm not sure. I believe that in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act they talk about the Health Insurance Exchange, which doesn't quite do the same thing but in fact allows private firms to sell qualifying plans (those that don't restrict on pre-existing conditions, have coverage offered on a guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal basis, and so on) alongside each other in order to promote transparency and reduce the effects of imperfect information.As far as my understanding of the plan runs, it is the government actually getting involved in the free market by purchasing insurance on the free market and selling it to people.Do you have a source? Your description does not fit my understanding of the public option.
In order to provide forThat quote and following sections make it clear that the public option would not just be an insurance broker matching people with private insurance companies. It would collect premiums and pay claims. It would establish a preferred health provider list, i.e., those doctors and hospitals that agree to accept the government's rates as full payment (see p. 127). And so on, for all the details of starting a new health insurance plan.
the establishment of the public health insurance
option there is hereby appropriated to the Sec-
retary, out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In
order to provide for initial claims reserves be-
fore the collection of premiums, there is hereby
appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth
of claims reserves based on projected enroll-
ment.
That makes sense. That would all be run through the HIE alongside qualifying programs, right?Yes, as far as I can tell.
I was looking through a couple of pages on the various different bills and I think that might have been deprecated. I'm not sure. I believe that in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act they talk about the Health Insurance Exchange, which doesn't quite do the same thing but in fact allows private firms to sell qualifying plans (those that don't restrict on pre-existing conditions, have coverage offered on a guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal basis, and so on) alongside each other in order to promote transparency and reduce the effects of imperfect information.As far as my understanding of the plan runs, it is the government actually getting involved in the free market by purchasing insurance on the free market and selling it to people.Do you have a source? Your description does not fit my understanding of the public option.
Don't conflate the profiteering of Glenn Beck with a corruption of the motives of the march as a whole.I don't know. My personal impression of the majority of people on those marches is that they don't actually understand what's going on. That's true in many political movements, but it's striking in this one because they are vocal in their ignorance. Whether your parents are amongst those, I wouldn't know or care to comment, but one person rarely represents a mob. The fact that the movement is promoted by and fed disinformation from entrenched interests completely removes any moral authority from "grassroots" claims.
The requirement part is true, yes, and that isn't "free market" in the absolute definition of the word. Perhaps you are right, a better phrase to use would have been simply a "market solution". Of course, this is the point of the matter - if one is going to insist that government mandate in terms of provision is bad, then why complain when the bill is designed to use virtually the entire mechanism of the free market (with the quite reasonable exception of non-participation)?QuoteIn what sense is this deviating from a free-market solution?In the sense that the government will fine your a$$ thousands of dollars for not purchasing the health care that they demand you have. That may be a market, but it sure ain't free.
Now, I can see STATE governments doing this. State governments already do something similar by forcing drivers to have car insurance before allowing them to drive. But allowing this to happen on a Federal level is utterly unconstitutional.Here's the link to a relevant part of the HR 3200 bill:
Oddly, I read that Atlantic article in the print copy some while ago (how quaint!). It has some interesting points to make. I disagree with the author's conclusions, however, because I think he is being far too dismissive of single payer systems which he admits perform better in other countries. Whether the idiosyncrasies of US politics combined with the intransigence of special interests and the mindless opposition would allow that to be effective in practice is a different debate.QuoteBut about half of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills.See the above article. If health care expenses were treated like any other rational kind of expense -- paid for out of pocket, or with credit or savings for significant expenses, and with health 'insurance' only used for what every other kind of insurance -- extreme emergencies -- medical costs would drop to the reasonable levels that traditional supply-and-demand would force them to. Only because of the occult nature of pricing and payment - created by the health insurance system - is health care noticably more expensive here than elsewhere.
That, and our national diet sucks, which makes us much, much more prone to heart attacks, cancer, diabetes, and a host of other diseases that no one will ever tell you are diet-related.
Well, also, our doctors are taught and our medicines are made to treat symptoms rather than actualyl solving the underlying problems that cause them. But that's just good business sense, from a strictly capitalist perspective.
But mostly it's the health insurance thing.
That quote and following sections make it clear that the public option would not just be an insurance broker matching people with private insurance companies. It would collect premiums and pay claims. It would establish a preferred health provider list, i.e., those doctors and hospitals that agree to accept the government's rates as full payment (see p. 127). And so on, for all the details of starting a new health insurance plan.That makes sense. That would all be run through the HIE alongside qualifying programs, right?
Who's calling names? In fact, I'm trying very hard to make sure I'm not, because frankly this is frustrating. You aren't actually making any effort at all to engage with the debate in any meaningful way. Rather than ask when you are confused, you make assumptions. You try to snipe points off the Democrats and then say you're not engaging in partisan politics (even though I'm not even from the US, let alone a Democrat, so the points are pretty irrelevant). I could clarify individual instances where you are talking about the bill, where you are talking about a hypothetical system, and where you are talking about politics, but that's ridiculous. The point I'm trying to make is that you seem to me to be either deliberately obfuscating issues in an attempt to avoid being pinned down, or incapable of following a thread. I'm not calling names, I'm pointing out why this discussion is difficult to follow and where I perceive you to be engaging in sophistry. Do you understand what I mean? I apologise if you feel offended that I am being direct with you in my assessment, but it is because I am trying to be honest. If we can agree to not attempt to confuse the discussion with irrelevancies any further, then I think that will solve the problem.This is going to be a mess of a response. I'm going to try to group quotes as best I can, but the problem with this discussion is that at its heart it is entirely schizophrenic. It is not at all clear what the focus is, since you continually mix your arguments between partisan politics, the actual bill, and some hypothetical system you are afraid is going to be implemented (though these three are only barely interrelated). It would be far more helpful if the discussion could focus on one thread of argument at a time (or alternatively be split into different threads so the discussions won't overlap).First- name calling does not contribute anything at all to this discussion. I fail to see how wanting the government to follow the limits specifically imposed by the Constitution is "partisan politics". That's a favorite tactic of the Democrat party- if you use facts and logic instead of soundbites and emotional appeal its "partisan politics".
Second- there is no "actual bill" at the moment- just a lot of hype.There are two major alternative bills currently introduced in congress. They can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676). Congress will probably at some point work on a merged bill. If you want to talk about the actual legislation that may be passed, you should be looking at them first, which is why I'm focusing on them.
the Democrats have lyed about what's in the bill, worked to scare people into supporting it and the whole thing was written by special interests and lobbiests. ... They are already saying they will not keep that promise with whatever healthcare bill they come up with. They have even suggested they will have entire sections that will be left blank until after the vote and then fill in with whatever they want to put in after it is approved.Do you have any proof at all for any of these rather outlandish statements? I think it's safe to ignore them unless supported.
The high unemployment right now is a significant factor in the number of people who the government is calling "uninsured". How significant might be debatable- and depend on where you get your information from- but it is significant nonetheless.This would be relevant if the statistics we were using covered the period where unemployment has risen. Statistics from 2007 and 2008 still show about the same numbers (15.3% in 2007 rather than 15.4% in 2008). What this means is that as unemployment is rising due to the recession, the figures for uninsured will increase even further. This isn't some figure which is artificially inflated due to a temporary rate of increased unemployment.
Using your example- the government should tax everybody to pay for oil changes in my car because it saves money. If my car breaks down, I can't get to work and will likely lose my job and end up on unemployment/welfare. That has a negative impact on society as a whole- and it could all be avoided if you just payed the $25 for my oil change. ... We could save money if we let the government just deliver food to us every week. It would create jobs. We wouldn't have to worry about eating if we lost our jobs. The government could buy in bulk and therefore squeeze the providers to take lower prices.Except "conservatives" would pitch a fit, and scream SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM until their faces were blue. :-*
Claiming healthcare is some kind of right or moral imperative is ridiculous. People lived 10s of thousands of years before there were such things as doctors or hospitals.They also had life expectancies of thirty. ::) But, see, I can do the substitution thing as well: Claiming that maintaining a highly-funded organised military is some kind of right or moral imperative is ridiculous. People lived tens of thousands of years before there were such things as guns and tanks. Except... wait! Society progresses! I am not personally claiming that healthcare is a right or a moral imperative because I do not believe that "rights" as a concept have any intrinsic worth, and I subscribe to a highly subjective moral framework. Nevertheless the economic benefits that I have outlined earlier in the thread are undeniably strong, and as you haven't yet even partly responded to my analysis other than to pick at concepts you don't understand, I'll take it that you agree.
You have NEVER explained how police/military/road building constitute redistribution of wealth other than to claim it is and never offer any explanation other than to attack the arguments I have made explaining how they aren't.I'll explain it step by step in a lot of detail, using roads as an example, so it is easier to follow. I will include many of the obvious steps I would otherwise gloss over, since they might be causing the problem.
This is going to be a mess of a response. I'm going to try to group quotes as best I can, but the problem with this discussion is that at its heart it is entirely schizophrenic. It is not at all clear what the focus is, since you continually mix your arguments between partisan politics, the actual bill, and some hypothetical system you are afraid is going to be implemented (though these three are only barely interrelated). It would be far more helpful if the discussion could focus on one thread of argument at a time (or alternatively be split into different threads so the discussions won't overlap).First- name calling does not contribute anything at all to this discussion. I fail to see how wanting the government to follow the limits specifically imposed by the Constitution is "partisan politics". That's a favorite tactic of the Democrat party- if you use facts and logic instead of soundbites and emotional appeal its "partisan politics".
This is an extreme tangent. I think this should be split off into a new thread if it needs further discussion.Government spending does not create demand or provide jobs (other than more bureaucrats). I don't even know where you get that. You're right to look at the money, but wrong about the effect. The stimulus plans are little more than a temporary crutch to delay the crash that is going to happen regardless and will be even worse once the crutch is removed. Right now the government is borrowing money (mostly from China)- which will have to be paid back with interest through higher taxes by our children and grandchildren. They have also printed and electronically created trillions- which WILL lead to inflation in the near future further exasperating the bad economy. The only reason inflation has not kicked in yet is all that money has so far been given to the ultra-rich in this country. Once it filters down to the middle and poor- then we will see the double-digit inflation we haven't seen since Carter. Another small point- the "boom/bust" cycle you mentioned is another creation of government. When they de-coupled the dollar from the gold standard and created the federal reserve- it allowed for a massive growth cycle (the roaring 20s) followed by the great depression. I agree this should be split off into a seperate thread if you want to talk about it more.
Increased government spending decreases unemployment because government spending is a component of aggregate demand. Provided we're not in the extreme monetarist case where any expansion of demand is purely inflationary (which is probably not the case, even in the long term), expansions of aggregate demand have the effect of increasing employment. Furthermore, due to the circular flow of income, that spending increases through the multiplier effect and causes even bigger growth. Government stimulus programs are therefore one method which can be used to stimulate the economy.
Where the government gets that money is another question. Some can be raised by internal methods such as decreasing spending in other areas, but let's assume for the moment that they are implementing the programs ex nihilo. If they borrow the money, then it is likely to be in part inflationary because the money supply is being increased, and it might potentially have a depressive effect on future government spending due to increased government debt. If the government increases tax revenue, this has an ambiguous effect. Since the government does not save the money, the multiplier effect is more increasing in demand than the taxation decreases demand. On the other hand, one would presume the government would already be at the optimal point on the laffer curve, and so therefore tax increases would be suboptimal. The effect also depends on who is being taxed.
Relating this theory back to the real world, the stimulus programs instituted by the Bush administration and the Obama administration (I assume you're referring to these, because this discussion actually has nothing to do with the healthcare bill) have lessened the impact of the recession at the cost of running a larger budget deficit. The problem faced by governments whose economies are running into recession is that it is more acceptable to lessen the impact rather than take into account future problems that may cause. Of course, it is also more reasonable from an economic perspective to mitigate the excesses of the business cycle, because it is more efficient to run at a modest rate of growth than it is to go through constant cycles of boom/bust.
But to your point- if you have a medical emergency you can go to any hospital and they are required by law to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. The same can't be said for routine doctor visits. If I sit on my but all day not working even if I am able and you go work hard every day- is it right for me to go see the doctor and make you pay for it just because you have the money?There are two distinct issues here. The first is the effectiveness of emergency vs preventative care. The second is the moral issue surrounding healthcare.
I've long believed that debating someone on the internet is not about convincing them, at least not in the end. Most ideologues never change their ideas over the course of a single argument, because cognitive dissonance is extremely powerful. The best you can usually hope for is to convince and influence people who are reading along.Colour me convinced Daxx. :) Well, thats not really true, because I agreed with you to begin with, but man, you make some powerful points! I'm eager to see if EH is going to ignore your 'roadbuilding' example or attempt to argue the point.
Don't confuse libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians acknowledge a role for a taxpayer-funded government, such as the existance of a judicial system.Well I think that varies from libertarian to libertarian. The point I'm trying to make is that it simply isn't enough to say that redistribution of wealth is wrong because it disadvantages some people. The onus is on the libertarians to define what is acceptable and non-acceptable redistribution of wealth, and more importantly, why.
You have NEVER explained how police/military/road building constitute redistribution of wealth other than to claim it is and never offer any explanation other than to attack the arguments I have made explaining how they aren't.Libertarians need to accept that the principle of redistribution of wealth which seems so central to their philosophy frequently benefits them (unless they live completely outside of society).