Tea Party march on Washington / Single Payer healthcare

[Evil Hamster]

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)

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the debate.

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.

[Evil Hamster]

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.

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. 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. Most of the "improvements" available in other countries come from treatments and inventions that could only be invented in a free market. This is simply because being on the bleeding edge of technology requires large amounts of money to be available to invest in research and development. That money isn't available in the same quantities without the profit motive. 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.

[Evil Hamster]

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.

First- the 15% number is inflated (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html)

Second- 15% of the population is not "rationed out of healthcare". Here's one breakdown of the numbers (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/31/the-real-story-on-the-uninsured/), and here's a slightly different analysis (http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/)

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.

Those people could be insured for less than the cost of the "stimulus package" that got shoved down our throats earlier this year.

[Evil Hamster]

The constitution forbids it thus we are not even allowed to think about it! Baaah baah!

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!

Please keep the discussion civil or don't post at all.

[Evil Hamster]

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.

[various-guises]

I would dispute the best part. But yeah you always get problems with any service, so none of them will be better in all areas. I would still perfer the service we get to yours currently.

My oldest friends mum is an ambulance driver, and i know for a fact they are not happy with the coverage for reasons i cant comment on as its currently an internal matter for the service. But if im honest, i think the crew basicly messed up badly. But i can just as easily point out stuff like doctors getting shot and still treating the person who shot them and not allowing police to arrest them untill they are fully better. Single cases for both sides will always be present. How it levels out is what matters.

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 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.


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.

[various-guises]

The "british constitution" does not allow us to bear arms at all

Like the Laws that are technically still in place that allow English  people to shoot the welsh inside the city of york ect, When new law are made it is implied that the old ones are no longer in force. Very simply put.

Read OAPA. (offences against the person act 1861 + ammendments) and the many laws on gun use.


note: I have a law degree and am an archer and a member of 2 gun clubs

edit: spelt York wrong...twice

[various-guises]

The idea of public healthcare seems to be a real sticking point over the water..(im English)

Here a my view, as someone who pays his tax to fund the national healthcare we have.

I earn a good wage, more than the national average, and i pay prehaps 10% less per month than i would for private healthcare. The ammount we pay is dictated by what we earn, with the highest earners funding those on lower/no income.  We dont get the best "care" from a bedside mannor point of view it must be said. Even our goverment and our top doctors admit this. (It is something that is being worked on) But statistically (sp) we have always had a much better percentage of people survive through our health system/live longer on average for those who are terminal, than in countries with no national healthcare.

We also provide a lot of drugs/services that healthcare plans (in general) do not. There are few treatments our goverment does not allow us to receive and these are normally ones that increase lifespan in terminal patients by a small ammount. Though any person can ask to get a drug without going through the court system in the first instance. Which in terminal patients is a cost/hassle they can do without.

 I will add that our healthcare system is mandatory and paid through tax  like any public service, though our doctors do not need to ask any details to treat a peron. 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.

Ill finish up here as its long enough without me going through all the points of our system.

conclusion;

Main good points: No drug/treatment will be denied or too costly to pay for with small exceptions.
Doctors/nurses able to put treating patients first. They are not policing who gets treatments ect.
Treatment for ALL
Our national healcare treats people no matter what: nothing invalidates it. (even a "terrorist" would get treatment if they needed it. ect even if its just a stitch they needed/they had a bad cough)

Main bad points: No choice in if we pay for it.
Paying for people who cant afford it means the rest of the population has to pay more.

I would change it a bit, but the underlying point i would have to say is this...we may say we dont like it sometimes. But we would never be without it. Also our survival rates ect speak for themselves. (Look at deaths during childbirth as a big one.Our numbers make yours (percentage wise also) look ghastily.)

Enough from me for now sorry for the long post.


Its not what something costs that matters. It is what you get for that money.

[captain haddock]

Just letting you guys know I'm without internet at home for the time being so I'll be back in a few days to throw myself back into the fire of debate. But basically I just agree with anything Daxx says anyway lol.

[Daxx]

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.

[Daxx]

But basically I just agree with anything Daxx says anyway lol.

captain haddock is a blithering idiot.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Daxx]

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.

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.

Definition from Wikipedia:
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.

You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.

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.