Nationalized Health Care

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Besides, you’re missing the real crux here—I said I had rational reasons. I didn’t say they were YOUR reasons, or that you would even agree with my reasons. People may be getting worked up, but I (and most people on this board including at least 1 MD I know of) have good reasons they are worked up. Just because you have different priorities than them doesn’t mean your priorities or perspectives are the right ones.

Another thing is that “we” leave “them” alone.

They can have their little hippie healthcare and be nice to everyone-

The point that they are obviously missing is that they need us to finance it against our will, that they need doctors to work for it, against their will.

That is a bit much for a system that will collapse sooner or later anyway.

…so what is the Swiss system, and how does it differ from the american and, say, the dutch one? Just in general, no need to write an article…
[/quote]

It really does not matter.

It is the inherent logic of a democratic system that it favors voters over non voters.

Meaning politicians have no problems proposing schemes that place a burden of debt on those coming after us that can never be repaid.

Look at any European social security scheme and you will see that they are already collapsing.

So when those pyramid schemes, because that is what they are, have collapsed, what will the 30-50% of people who depend on government checks do then?

Nationalized health care lives off of the Nirvana fallacy. It compares what is to a paradise that will never be. In reality it will be a system of servitude that will sooner or later collapse with mathematical certainty and will royally fuck over all the “poor people” it was supposed to help.

And, by the way, neither your nor my republic will survive it when a major percentage of people is facing cold, hunger and poverty.

[ephrem]

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Besides, you’re missing the real crux here—I said I had rational reasons. I didn’t say they were YOUR reasons, or that you would even agree with my reasons. People may be getting worked up, but I (and most people on this board including at least 1 MD I know of) have good reasons they are worked up. Just because you have different priorities than them doesn’t mean your priorities or perspectives are the right ones.

Another thing is that “we” leave “them” alone.

They can have their little hippie healthcare and be nice to everyone-

The point that they are obviously missing is that they need us to finance it against our will, that they need doctors to work for it, against their will.

That is a bit much for a system that will collapse sooner or later anyway.

…so what is the Swiss system, and how does it differ from the american and, say, the dutch one? Just in general, no need to write an article…

It really does not matter.

It is the inherent logic of a democratic system that it favors voters over non voters.

Meaning politicians have no problems proposing schemes that place a burden of debt on those coming after us that can never be repaid.

Look at any European social security scheme and you will see that they are already collapsing.

So when those pyramid schemes, because that is what they are, have collapsed, what will the 30-50% of people who depend on government checks do then?

Nationalized health care lives off of the Nirvana fallacy. It compares what is to a paradise that will never be. In reality it will be a system of servitude that will sooner or later collapse with mathematical certainty and will royally fuck over all the “poor people” it was supposed to help.

And, by the way, neither your nor my republic will survive it when a major percentage of people is facing cold, hunger and poverty.[/quote]

…does that bother you? The people who depend on government checks would probably not have survived in another way, and the fact that they will have a hard time surviving a system crash should mean little in libertarian views. Each man for himself, right?

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…nationalized healthcare isn’t evil, and it’s not perfect. It’s a system. If you have to make a choice between systems, you do that based on cost, availability and quality, but not on emotion…

It is a system that cannot be built without the threat of violence.

Of course it is evil.

…then any form of government is evil?

Government is a necessary evil that - at least here in the US - is subject to the rule of law. The powers of the Federal Government are enumerated. Which part of the US Constitution empowers the US Government to provide a national health care system? [/quote]

…i don’t know. What other system do you suggest?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Besides, you’re missing the real crux here—I said I had rational reasons. I didn’t say they were YOUR reasons, or that you would even agree with my reasons. People may be getting worked up, but I (and most people on this board including at least 1 MD I know of) have good reasons they are worked up. Just because you have different priorities than them doesn’t mean your priorities or perspectives are the right ones.

Another thing is that “we” leave “them” alone.

They can have their little hippie healthcare and be nice to everyone-

The point that they are obviously missing is that they need us to finance it against our will, that they need doctors to work for it, against their will.

That is a bit much for a system that will collapse sooner or later anyway.

…so what is the Swiss system, and how does it differ from the american and, say, the dutch one? Just in general, no need to write an article…

It really does not matter.

It is the inherent logic of a democratic system that it favors voters over non voters.

Meaning politicians have no problems proposing schemes that place a burden of debt on those coming after us that can never be repaid.

Look at any European social security scheme and you will see that they are already collapsing.

So when those pyramid schemes, because that is what they are, have collapsed, what will the 30-50% of people who depend on government checks do then?

Nationalized health care lives off of the Nirvana fallacy. It compares what is to a paradise that will never be. In reality it will be a system of servitude that will sooner or later collapse with mathematical certainty and will royally fuck over all the “poor people” it was supposed to help.

And, by the way, neither your nor my republic will survive it when a major percentage of people is facing cold, hunger and poverty.

…does that bother you? The people who depend on government checks would probably not have survived in another way, and the fact that they will have a hard time surviving a system crash should mean little in libertarian views. Each man for himself, right?

[/quote]

Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…nationalized healthcare isn’t evil, and it’s not perfect. It’s a system. If you have to make a choice between systems, you do that based on cost, availability and quality, but not on emotion…

It is a system that cannot be built without the threat of violence.

Of course it is evil.

…then any form of government is evil?

Government is a necessary evil that - at least here in the US - is subject to the rule of law. The powers of the Federal Government are enumerated. Which part of the US Constitution empowers the US Government to provide a national health care system?

…i don’t know. What other system do you suggest?

[/quote]

I’m not smart enough to create a [workable, fair, efficient, etc. ] “system” in my mind or on paper. No one is. No group is. That’s the problem with central planning.

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.[/quote]

…well then, i’d rather have government, with all it’s flaws and abuse, then return to a life that may be free but is also barbaric. Besides, humans form tribes, villages and cities. They elect leaders and a way to enforce the will of the leader → government. But i admit that nowadays the way [my] government looks for ways to control the population borders on the '1984’esq. I’m going offtopic, so rewind please…

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Besides, you’re missing the real crux here—I said I had rational reasons. I didn’t say they were YOUR reasons, or that you would even agree with my reasons. People may be getting worked up, but I (and most people on this board including at least 1 MD I know of) have good reasons they are worked up. Just because you have different priorities than them doesn’t mean your priorities or perspectives are the right ones.

Another thing is that “we” leave “them” alone.

They can have their little hippie healthcare and be nice to everyone-

The point that they are obviously missing is that they need us to finance it against our will, that they need doctors to work for it, against their will.

That is a bit much for a system that will collapse sooner or later anyway.

…so what is the Swiss system, and how does it differ from the american and, say, the dutch one? Just in general, no need to write an article…

It really does not matter.

It is the inherent logic of a democratic system that it favors voters over non voters.

Meaning politicians have no problems proposing schemes that place a burden of debt on those coming after us that can never be repaid.

Look at any European social security scheme and you will see that they are already collapsing.

So when those pyramid schemes, because that is what they are, have collapsed, what will the 30-50% of people who depend on government checks do then?

Nationalized health care lives off of the Nirvana fallacy. It compares what is to a paradise that will never be. In reality it will be a system of servitude that will sooner or later collapse with mathematical certainty and will royally fuck over all the “poor people” it was supposed to help.

And, by the way, neither your nor my republic will survive it when a major percentage of people is facing cold, hunger and poverty.

…does that bother you? The people who depend on government checks would probably not have survived in another way, and the fact that they will have a hard time surviving a system crash should mean little in libertarian views. Each man for himself, right?

[/quote]

That is a misrepresentation of libertarian thought.

First of all, if government would not constantly meddle with the economy even the poorest of the poor would have an enviable living standard in a few decades including health care and all. Of course they would feel deprived even then because other people would still have more.

This is something capitalism has proven to be capable of doing over and over and over again.

Then, just because I refuse to be "charitable " at gunpoint does not mean that I refuse to help others. Look up charities in Victorian England. They simply did not need government.

Also, the nature of redistribution changes if it is voluntary. If government takes away half of what I earn I will work less. If I give away half of what I earn I might even work more because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That is not just a fantasy of mine there are tons of studies showing that the higher a progressive taxation the poorer the poor and that people vehemently opposing forced redistribution actually give more than those people who think it is governments job.

I am beginning to think that people who want to make government responsible for poverty are just using that to not have to do it for themselves even though they find it to be unbearable, whereas more “conservative” people just do something about it without crying for allmighty government to come to the rescue.

Which approach is more mature, sustainable and works without coercion?

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.

…well then, i’d rather have government, with all it’s flaws and abuse, then return to a life that may be free but is also barbaric. Besides, humans form tribes, villages and cities. They elect leaders and a way to enforce the will of the leader → government. But i admit that nowadays the way [my] government looks for ways to control the population borders on the '1984’esq. I’m going offtopic, so rewind please…

[/quote]

Just because you post your fallacy again does not make it any more valid.

In fact misrepresent your own position because it would be a choice between barbarism and barbarism.

Libertarians would then like to have their barbarism as small and as decentralized as possible, whereas you prefer Big Barbarism.

[ephrem]

orion wrote:That is a misrepresentation of libertarian thought.

…i apologize…

First of all, if government would not constantly meddle with the economy even the poorest of the poor would have an enviable living standard in a few decades including health care and all. Of course they would feel deprived even then because other people would still have more.

…there would not be military junta’s, crazy dictators and civil war in Africa and Asia?

[quote]This is something capitalism has proven to be capable of doing over and over and over again.

Then, just because I refuse to be "charitable " at gunpoint does not mean that I refuse to help others. Look up charities in Victorian England. They simply did not need government.[/quote]

…and yet there was extreme poverty in Victorian England, inspite of the charities. A level of poverty now virtually extinct…

Also, the nature of redistribution changes if it is voluntary. If government takes away half of what I earn I will work less. If I give away half of what I earn I might even work more because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That is not just a fantasy of mine there are tons of studies showing that the higher a progressive taxation the poorer the poor and that people vehemently opposing forced redistribution actually give more than those people who think it is governments job.

…i can’t work less, but i won’t work more. I don’t give to charities because i am uncaring to those outside my direct circle of people. I don’t expect the government to be charitable to anyone outside of our borders, and i would like to see more people off the dole. Those tons of studies, where were they held?

[quote]I am beginning to think that people who want to make government responsible for poverty are just using that to not have to do it for themselves even though they find it to be unbearable, whereas more “conservative” people just do something about it without crying for allmighty government to come to the rescue.

Which approach is more mature, sustainable and works without coercion?[/quote]

…no, i don’t think government is responsible for poverty, and i don’t find it unbearable that it exists. Whatever gave you that idea, but i do think that for the working population, who contribute to the nation via taxes and hard work, should reap the benefits of that work. Benefits that make life just that much easier and comfortable…

[ephrem]

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.

…well then, i’d rather have government, with all it’s flaws and abuse, then return to a life that may be free but is also barbaric. Besides, humans form tribes, villages and cities. They elect leaders and a way to enforce the will of the leader → government. But i admit that nowadays the way [my] government looks for ways to control the population borders on the '1984’esq. I’m going offtopic, so rewind please…

Just because you post your fallacy again does not make it any more valid.

In fact misrepresent your own position because it would be a choice between barbarism and barbarism.

Libertarians would then like to have their barbarism as small and as decentralized as possible, whereas you prefer Big Barbarism.[/quote]

…sorry for being confused here, but you are not saying, “abolish government”, but propose a small and decentralized form of government that takes care of the bear necessaties? Perhaps that’s gonna happen after we have a global collaps of society, but not before…

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.

…well then, i’d rather have government, with all it’s flaws and abuse, then return to a life that may be free but is also barbaric. Besides, humans form tribes, villages and cities. They elect leaders and a way to enforce the will of the leader → government. But i admit that nowadays the way [my] government looks for ways to control the population borders on the '1984’esq. I’m going offtopic, so rewind please…

Just because you post your fallacy again does not make it any more valid.

In fact misrepresent your own position because it would be a choice between barbarism and barbarism.

Libertarians would then like to have their barbarism as small and as decentralized as possible, whereas you prefer Big Barbarism.

…sorry for being confused here, but you are not saying, “abolish government”, but propose a small and decentralized form of government that takes care of the bear necessaties? Perhaps that’s gonna happen after we have a global collaps of society, but not before…

[/quote]

Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:That is a misrepresentation of libertarian thought.

…i apologize…

First of all, if government would not constantly meddle with the economy even the poorest of the poor would have an enviable living standard in a few decades including health care and all. Of course they would feel deprived even then because other people would still have more.

…there would not be military junta’s, crazy dictators and civil war in Africa and Asia?

This is something capitalism has proven to be capable of doing over and over and over again.

Then, just because I refuse to be "charitable " at gunpoint does not mean that I refuse to help others. Look up charities in Victorian England. They simply did not need government.

…and yet there was extreme poverty in Victorian England, inspite of the charities. A level of poverty now virtually extinct…

Also, the nature of redistribution changes if it is voluntary. If government takes away half of what I earn I will work less. If I give away half of what I earn I might even work more because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That is not just a fantasy of mine there are tons of studies showing that the higher a progressive taxation the poorer the poor and that people vehemently opposing forced redistribution actually give more than those people who think it is governments job.

…i can’t work less, but i won’t work more. I don’t give to charities because i am uncaring to those outside my direct circle of people. I don’t expect the government to be charitable to anyone outside of our borders, and i would like to see more people off the dole. Those tons of studies, where were they held?

I am beginning to think that people who want to make government responsible for poverty are just using that to not have to do it for themselves even though they find it to be unbearable, whereas more “conservative” people just do something about it without crying for allmighty government to come to the rescue.

Which approach is more mature, sustainable and works without coercion?

…no, i don’t think government is responsible for poverty, and i don’t find it unbearable that it exists. Whatever gave you that idea, but i do think that for the working population, who contribute to the nation via taxes and hard work, should reap the benefits of that work. Benefits that make life just that much easier and comfortable…

[/quote]

To your first two respones:

What do military juntas have to do with anything? I know of one junta with a laissez faire system and that was Chile. Want to look up how they are doing in comparison to their “compassionate” neighbors?

Yes, they were poor but they shared what they had. After one hundred and something years of capital formation they are no longer poor. Hurray for capitalism? You are not one of those people who believe that fruits are not created by those who plant and water the trees but by those who rob them when they try to sell them on the market place and bribe some voters with them?

Last point:

Yes, we agree. I want those hard working people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Therefore I do not want the government to take that money away and waste it on some utopian fantasies. If you, or them, feel the need to finance such fantasies, please, go on, feel free to do so.

However to not force me or someone else who thinks who knows better to toil for your ideas at gunpoint. It is my live, I would like to spend my money on my own crazy ideas.

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Either it’s government OR everyman for himself.

^^ THAT is a false choice.

…well then, i’d rather have government, with all it’s flaws and abuse, then return to a life that may be free but is also barbaric. Besides, humans form tribes, villages and cities. They elect leaders and a way to enforce the will of the leader → government. But i admit that nowadays the way [my] government looks for ways to control the population borders on the '1984’esq. I’m going offtopic, so rewind please…

Just because you post your fallacy again does not make it any more valid.

In fact misrepresent your own position because it would be a choice between barbarism and barbarism.

Libertarians would then like to have their barbarism as small and as decentralized as possible, whereas you prefer Big Barbarism.

…sorry for being confused here, but you are not saying, “abolish government”, but propose a small and decentralized form of government that takes care of the bear necessaties? Perhaps that’s gonna happen after we have a global collaps of society, but not before…

[/quote]

If you think that a market system is barbaric so be it. However there are several entities in a market system and I can choose who to deal with.

In your system one entity, i.e. government tells me what to do and I cannot simply walk away as I can with any corporation.

That is at least as barbaric but much less free.

[ephrem]

katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

[ephrem]

orion wrote:What do military juntas have to do with anything? I know of one junta with a laissez faire system and that was Chile. Want to look up how they are doing in comparison to their “compassionate” neighbors?

…i wrote that from the viewpoint of western governments interfering with economies abroad. You may ignore it if that is not what you meant…

Yes, they were poor but they shared what they had. After one hundred and something years of capital formation they are no longer poor. Hurray for capitalism? You are not one of those people who believe that fruits are not created by those who plant and water the trees but by those who rob them when they try to sell them on the market place and bribe some voters with them?

…come again? They lived in filth, had no health care, had to work all day everyday, but that’s allright because the little they had, they shared. Yeah right…

[quote]Last point:

Yes, we agree. I want those hard working people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Therefore I do not want the government to take that money away and waste it on some utopian fantasies. If you, or them, feel the need to finance such fantasies, please, go on, feel free to do so.

However to not force me or someone else who thinks who knows better to toil for your ideas at gunpoint. It is my live, I would like to spend my money on my own crazy ideas.[/quote]

…honestly, altough i agree that governments today grow out of control, your scenario is a pipedream. At least in Europe it is. So what are you going to do? What’s your plan?

[ephrem]

[quote]orion wrote:If you think that a market system is barbaric so be it. However there are several entities in a market system and I can choose who to deal with.

In your system one entity, i.e. government tells me what to do and I cannot simply walk away as I can with any corporation.

That is at least as barbaric but much less free.[/quote]

…i don’t think a deregulated free market is the answer you think it is. We can agree to disagree?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

[/quote]

Within a nation - generally very local, rooted in a place. There is no such thing as an abstract “community” - i.e., among nations, a nation itself, etc.

[ephrem]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Eph, there exist and have always existed voluntary, non-governmental modes of association. They’re called communities.

…that exist outside or within an established nation?

Within a nation - generally very local, rooted in a place. There is no such thing as an abstract “community” - i.e., among nations, a nation itself, etc. [/quote]

…won’t those communities fall under that nation’s law?

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The way the President has proceeded thusfar…by getting the Health Care Industry involved…it is unlikely that what will come out of all this with a “European-Style” Health Care System.

Most likely, there will be some type of “hybrid” of private/governmental system that will be unique in the delivery of Health Care.

How it will all pan out, absolutely NO one knows.

I word about us (Americans)…there is no way that we, as a people, have the patience or tolerance level for a completely Governmental Run System. When you have people who yell and scream in an office because the Physician is 20 minutes behind, they certainly are not going to patient waiting 3-6 months for a non-emergent procedure.

There is also a MAJOR problem brewing that no-one is discussing…the poor distribution of Health Care Providers, especially in 1) Primary Care and 2) High-Risk Specialties like OB-GYN.

More and more medical students simply are not choosing to go into these areas.

More people may be insured…but we’ll have less and less qualified people to care for them.

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s a good thing everyone read over this post without replying. Why would we talk about reality when we can instead discuss false choices and boogiemen?

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:What do military juntas have to do with anything? I know of one junta with a laissez faire system and that was Chile. Want to look up how they are doing in comparison to their “compassionate” neighbors?

…i wrote that from the viewpoint of western governments interfering with economies abroad. You may ignore it if that is not what you meant…

Yes, they were poor but they shared what they had. After one hundred and something years of capital formation they are no longer poor. Hurray for capitalism? You are not one of those people who believe that fruits are not created by those who plant and water the trees but by those who rob them when they try to sell them on the market place and bribe some voters with them?

…come again? They lived in filth, had no health care, had to work all day everyday, but that’s allright because the little they had, they shared. Yeah right…

Last point:

Yes, we agree. I want those hard working people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Therefore I do not want the government to take that money away and waste it on some utopian fantasies. If you, or them, feel the need to finance such fantasies, please, go on, feel free to do so.

However to not force me or someone else who thinks who knows better to toil for your ideas at gunpoint. It is my live, I would like to spend my money on my own crazy ideas.

…honestly, altough i agree that governments today grow out of control, your scenario is a pipedream. At least in Europe it is. So what are you going to do? What’s your plan?

[/quote]

1. If you look closely you find that it takes two to tango. In that case an international company and a corrupt regime. I find it interesting that cultures who already had governments for millenia were quite able to roll with the punches whereas those who had a tribal culture were not.

Maybe we are not entirely to blame for their misery?

Anyway we would have conquered them no matter what, capitalism , mercantilism, socialism, they were weak, we were not. Human nature, no matter what the -ism.

2. You are missing the point. They made the best of what they had.

Now we have more. But not thanks to redistribution but thanks to the formation of capital.

Tomorrow however we will not be as better off as we could be because central planning wastes money and it is the nature of exponential growth that such waste adds up to frightening numbers.

3. The same plan as all the other people have whop get it. I know of no Austrian who runs a business who does pay all the taxes he allegedly owes. Those who have businesses that are large enough only pay a 25% corporate flat tax and not even that is entirely true.

So, in effect, those people who want to steal from us only steal from themselves with the result that they will ruin themselves.

And no, I will not pity them too much when they reap what they sow.