Maybe sometime soon America will mature to the stage where being anti-authority is central to being beyond the naive convention of nationality.
Maybe sometime soon America will mature to the stage where being anti-authority is central to being beyond the naive convention of nationality.
Rebellion is always necessary when the government has lost its way. I agree with you that this is another topic though, so we can let it go and perhaps discuss it in another thread.
First off, not having a state-run universal health care program does not make us worse than anyone else. That is your opinion and you use the idea that America does not have systems like Europe and Canada as an argument through ethos, when in reality it holds no water. You seem to assume that health care is a right, but that is a debatable issue.
Second, no one is against people having health care- we simply feel it could be done in a better way. America is currently the world's leader in health care innovation. Quality is also extremely high and waiting times short. There are also more treatment options than in countries such as the UK, where the state refuses to do certain types of treatments, which are fairly common in the United States due to the costs that come with them.
Third, universal health care is of course not free health care. The people still pay for it through tax and inflation. Government systems are often prone to large deficits and end up going bankrupt- Greece being a prime example right now. Also, they are prone to bureaucracy, corruption, special interests, and the costs that come with all of that.
There are better ways to go about this instead of giving in to corporate interests that will only cost Americans tons and restrict their freedoms. Opening up competition and no longer favoring insurance companies would quickly reduce costs and make insurance more affordable for many. Also, changing the tax code to reduce favoring certain parts of the market would also reduce costs and lead to more choices.
Health care has nothing to do with democracy. Not to mention, the United States is a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Again, we can discuss this elsewhere as it is not really central to this topic. What I was saying though is you admitted people feared government, yet you are fine with all of this growth in government.
I don't know about a right. But i think most can agree everyone should have it. How that is to be achieved is another matter, of course.
Do they? You've mentioned this before, could you give examples, please? I'm interested.
I will say, German system? Very cheap, highly efficient, wonderfully effective.
I shall do what is a complete rarity for me:
Bible said:
Plutocracy.
Oh, and remember, at the point you're feeling smug about Greece that:
a) it's no wonder they're in economic turmoil considering their social situation at the moment.
b) the current American healthcare system costs more by taxes than Greece's. Then on top of that, individuals have to pay directly for health insurance as well.
a) it's no wonder they're in economic turmoil considering their social situation at the moment.
b) the current American healthcare system costs more by taxes than Greece's. Then on top of that, individuals have to pay directly for health insurance as well.
I agree with all of that.
I will surely get you some links tomorrow (too tired to look right now
)The people still pay for it through taxes- I was just pointing out that free healthcare is not a real thing. Personally, I think the German system could be improved and it would have a lot more problems in a state of larger population such as the US. Again though, that was not my point here.
Right back at ya
But in all seriousness, I have truly tried to look at universal systems and I just don't see a fit that would work in the United States. As per the Constitution, I would feel a lot more comfortable if individual states wanted to pursue it instead of the Federal government.Only when the state started actively meddling in the market and gave power to special interest groups.
And again, the American system right now is far from ideal. People on both sides accept that. Costs have certainly skyrocketed, but that is proportional to government meddling in the health care market, which has grown tremendously over the last couple decades. I am advocating a move towards a free market system, not one in which corporatist policy rules. Ironically, even Obama's attempt at universal health care is corporatist, even more so than the current situation.
I know, i thought it worth saying.
I will surely get you some links tomorrow (too tired to look right now
Thanks. I'm looking at how my LHS idea could improve upon the current UK model.
Ah, but it pays only for the poor that need help anyway.
I was not necessarily suggesting it, just saying it works brilliantly.
Firstly, i'd agree with a state-by-state approach, since the more local a health system, the more specific and effective it can be.
And secondly, if i might espouse some helpful criticism, i'd say you're going about it the wrong way. The systems should be decided by the people concerned and can be unique - rather than adopt a system, create your own. Try taking the best part of other systems and finding what works for you on that basis. For example, i use the NHS as a template to develop the LHS. Use your imagination and good luck.
Agreed. I am merely concerned you aren't considering all the variables. It is difficult to compare across countries - i was attempting to demonstrate this. You actually gave a good example just now when you suggested that the German healthcare system may not be practical in the United States.
Oh stop. Grow up. You, government and I are all imperfect. What I criticized was generalized verbal whining. Americans are not unique in criticizing government.Originally Posted by chuck schmidt
Your paragraph attacks the wrong issue. Health care is the main topic, but you attacked my post on by suggesting that being anti-authority is central to being American. I am disagreeing with that position. America has matured beyond the rebellion stage where being anti-authority is central to being American.
Of course its my opine. That?s why I said it. It holds much water. There was no universal health care in 1776, but there were slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt
No. The protests are there because some people disagree with the concept of universal health care in the 21st Century. It is a fair political position, from the perspective that in politics it is ok to be for or against anything. As long as you don?t mind 20,000,000 + Americans having inadequate health care, and most of the rest having to balance their families? health with employee relations, it is even justifiable. After all, amongst the western democracies America can stand proudly beside South Africa as another example. Or used to be able to anyway.
Health is a right in a country that can afford it. Maybe not in Sudan or Somalia, but it is in every western industrial democracy. One unhealthy person can maintain an epidemic. Support your position.
Evidence? America is bogged down in reaping corporate profits. The medical ethic side of medical care has disappeared and benefit wienies in insurance companies compete for bonuses by denying claims that effect lives. America is the world leader in health insurance profits, but nothing more. Too many Americans defend everything and anything by saying, ?America is the world leader in [fill in blank]_____________________________________ and therefore we shall not change.? America, if it ever was the legend its supporters claimed, is no longer.
Over 20,000,000 people have no insurance coverage. Holders of insurance get it through their employers who can threaten their children?s health coverage on the job.
There is no free lunch, we agree. Since the 1770?s most societies have come to move certain services into the area of public coverage for the benefit of all. America has not done so because of the strangle hold large moneyed interests have over government power. An example is recent huge and unjustified jumps in health care premiums by private insurers. Public health is simply an area too important to be trusted to profit takers, and the profit takers have proved it.
Exactly. Interesting that you now agree bleeding somebody financially for an essential service is a denial of freedom.
That?s not what you said above. Freedom on how to spend money caused the American Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt
I guess that leaves the US as the most undemocratic western state?
And a republic is nothing but a government without a king or queen. It can be democratic or non-democratic. It doesn?t even have to be a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Once again you are being too simplistic. All peoples dislike their government from time to time. Few western democracies fear them. As for growth, some is desirable and some is not. You seem to argue in extremes while ignoring the extremism in some of your positions?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt
May I suggest your thinking is overly simplistic and mono-directional? I didn?t ?explain how? people fear government. I noted it as a fact. I think a paradigm change is needed by those inside and outside of government who fear each other. That can only start by admitting the fact and discussing it. As is happening here.
Who is government or you to say that people can not whine if they want? That is their right to whine and as per the first amendment I would personally protect that right as much as I can even if I don't like the whining.
Fair enough, but your last point (slaves) is completely irrelevant to this discussion other than in perhaps showing that thinking changes.
It really depends on what you define as "right." If you define a right as something that everyone is entitled to from birth and can be had without the coercion or interference of others, then health care is not a right. That is another topic though, and one which there is already an ongoing thread for: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=1111
Don't get me wrong, I am for getting as many people health care as possible and it is sad that we currently have millions uninsured, but I do not believe health care is a right. That being said, I also do not think the government is the solution to that problem.
Which is proportional to the amount of government involvement in the industry. I support a free market approach, not a crony capitalist or corporatist one, as current policy leans toward (as does the bill.)
In terms of innovation- new procedures, new medicines, etc.- America is a top producer. Furthermore, our surgery and generally procedures are often ranked among the top in the world. Ironically, just recently Canadian Premier Danny Williams even chose the United States over his own country, which does have universal care: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA
I realize that, but that is the result of what I see as a lack of faith in markets. The reason the employer-provided coverage is so high is because the tax code favors that and as such, it often leads to broad plans with less choices for consumers and waste among those who do have it.
The reason for that much pricing power in the hands of the insurance companies is because they have so much control over markets due to a lack of competition caused by policies such as restricting insurance purchase across state lines. The recent jumps are the result of an increasing unemployment rate, which has led formerly insured and healthy people to losing insurance and not buying it, leading to smaller pools of money within the states and hence, higher premiums for those who do need or still want the insurance.
That is a result of crony capitalism and not free markets. This plan only increases customers for these companies without sufficiently reducing costs and in the end the American people will pay for it. Heck, even Medicare and social security are bound to go into the red within the next 10-15 years, and yet they want another entitlement program?
Yes the freedom to spend money- universal health care does not allow for that. Perhaps using "nothing to do" wasn't the best word choice.
I was simply responding to your false claim that the US is a democracy.
This side-discussion is really off-topic and I am not sure what you are even trying to say. We can drop it or discuss it elsewhere.
My phraseology was not as tactful as it might have been, but also practical as another way of saying, “Oh BS.”chuck schmidt
Oh stop. Grow up. You, government and I are all imperfect. What I criticized was generalized verbal whining. Americans are not unique in criticizing government.
Actually I think you err in principal. Constitutions are to prevent governments from over-riding rights. There is no constitutional protection from telling each other not to whine.
The point you try to dismiss as irrelevant is exactly my point. Every other western democracy has universal medicare, and the US reason is corporate greed and an electorate snowed by propaganda. It is time for America to move beyond the 1770's in political philosophy the same as it has in scientific.chuck schmidt
Of course its my opine. That’s why I said it. It holds much water. There was no universal health care in 1776, but there were slaves.
I don’t think there is room in a nation of 330,000,000 for the kind of current corporate-greed driven profit from which most Americans suffer.chuck schmidt
Health is a right in a country that can afford it. Maybe not in Sudan or Somalia, but it is in every western industrial democracy. One unhealthy person can maintain an epidemic. Support your position.
I am uncertain what you mean by your “chrony” expressions, but perfection is the enemy of the possible.chuck schmidt
Evidence? America is bogged down in reaping corporate profits.
As you said to me a while back, do you have a source for that? Bragging that it is so does not make it so. Even if isolated US scientists are making breakthroughs, it is meaningless if it is not universally available. Why should the average American voter support a policy that keeps his wealthy leaders alive and healthy when he must bargain his children's heath care to keep a job? If you have such a wealth of information available, how many Americans actually have affordable family health care?chuck schmidt
The medical ethic side of medical care has disappeared and benefit wienies in insurance companies compete for bonuses by denying claims that effect lives. America is the world leader in health insurance profits, but nothing more….
As to your point about the Newfoundland premier, so what? Personal choices by the elitist leader from Canada’s poorest province doesn’t create logic?
There is no absence of markets. Americans are crying out for the quality of health care available to every Canadian or Brit. It is what it is and America needs it to be different. Nation wide universal health care is needed like in every other western nation.chuck schmidt
Over 20,000,000 people have no insurance coverage. Holders of insurance get it through their employers who can threaten their children’s health coverage on the job.
Federal versus state jurisdiction requires constitutional change. Medical care in Canada is not federal either.chuck schmidt
There is no free lunch, we agree. Since the 1770’s most societies have come to move certain services into the area of public coverage for the benefit of all. America has not done so because of the strangle hold large moneyed interests have over government power. An example is recent huge and unjustified jumps in health care premiums by private insurers. Public health is simply an area too important to be trusted to profit takers, and the profit takers have proved it.
Non sequiter. The medical problems will remain once the economy recovers. They are not the issue.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding. In that para I am talking about constitutional freedom, not the interaction of capitalism and free markets.chuck schmidt
Exactly. Interesting that you now agree bleeding somebody financially for an essential service is a denial of freedom.
Like military spending? So what? The hyper-critical Canadian medical associations have been claiming the same thing since 1965 and Canadians still have universal health coverage.
My claim is not false. Look up “republic” and “democracy”. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive and the US is both. Your retreat into this argument is something I have often seen conservatives try (not to say you are one) when faced with a duty of democracy they wish to avoid. Like equality.chuck schmidt
And a republic is nothing but a government without a king or queen. It can be democratic or non-democratic. It doesn’t even have to be a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Last edited:
Similar threads
