Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

So if someone somewhere dies from a disease, it's my fault?

Does the government provide all funeral and burial services now?

Oh, my shiny avatar'd friend, it is not hatred. I can't speak for Nate, but it is a hatred of theft, of coercion, of threats of violence that motivate me to oppose socialism.

Only if I can't figure out how it can be provided privately. Or if it is socially funded by voluntary means. If 100 people living in an area decide to collectively start a police and fire department, that is their business. If 51 people decide for another 49 people that they must all pay for fire service, I don't think that is right.

By the way, there are several which I can't quite reason out for private provision. However the principle to oppose coerced participation is consistent, regardless of what scenario is drawn up. I would not steal from you to feed someone else.

And likewise, I would not reduce your medical care against your will, in order to provide medical care for someone else. I am not God. No man is. And two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Why can't you pay it? Too expensive?

Why is it so expensive?

Don't forget inefficiency and lower service levels from socialized medicine.

Indeed.

Sure, and if we raise the minimum wage to $35,000 per hour, everyone would be a millionaire.

Just one tiny, inconvenient question. Seeing as how we are running a deficit, seeing increasing inflation, have a $9 trillion debt, and $60 trillion already in unfunded entitlements coming up (without more healthcare), how do you propose we pay for this? Where will the money come from?

Good for you George. That is the most insightful thing you have posted today.

So if we want to tackle the health care insurance issues, we might need to provide a free, paid and/or charity service to help people translate their insurance contracts from legalese into plain English.

Think how great that would be. We could help empower consumers to get the coverage they need, instead of being frustrated when they need their coverage.

Anyone else think this is a great project for us to work on?

 

So you're saying that I have an obligation to save people from disease?

I reject this. It's a "positive right", which places an obligation on me that is impossible to fulfill. And hence, it cannot be a naturally occurring right.

Yes. Not to be rude, but who cares. I can make up all sorts of crazy scenarios. I'm not promising perfection, I'm promising opportunity, freedom and fairness. Whether or not people can make that work, is up to them.

Because your property is private, the private fire fighting firm would not have the right to enter or deal with your property. However, they would fight to protect my property, and if any damage occurred from your fire, I would sue you for starting the fire. That's why it's in your best interest to also pay for fire coverage. You can burn down your house, but you have no right to burn down mine as well.

Only by creating massive amounts of free loaders.

It also charges all of the people who do not need the service for it. And typically, per property risk assessments are not performed for social goods, which is part of what makes them so inefficient. The guy who smokes indoors should pay more for fire service, and likewise, people with home alarms, and home security should get discounts for police service.

Social goods just spreads the cost all over everyone, and removes the natural inclination to protect ones own property with the false sense of security that a public good provides.

Yes, if you don't (or can't) pay for fire service, the government can kidnap (jail) you or steal (confiscate) your home. Great system, where do I sign up, and can I get a free beating thrown in?

You're not understanding the necessary component of property rights.

This isn't personal, just a comment.

In this thread, I've seen people describe the free market as corporatism or mercantilism. This is incorrect.

I have seen that people have no idea what the notion of private property rights are. In fact, I bet most people don't know what allodial title is.

I've seen people indicate they think I am for lawlessness, when on the contrary, I am for strict observance of the law, particularly contract law.

Is liberty and classic liberalism so much a lost philosophy? It's very sad that people cannot imagine, let alone desire, to have more personal freedom and self-responsibility, and less government interference and control. It's as though people truly believe that government will be able to somehow magically manufacture healthcare for everyone, when without that, we are already bankrupt and at risk of losing entitlement programs like social security and medicare over the next 20 years.

It's all well and good to assume that by government legislative fiat, the waving of the Congressional magic wand so-to-speak, an army of doctors will emerge from colleges, medical equipment will roll off the assembly lines, and hospitals will grow up around us overnight, but that's clearly more Disney, than it is reality.

Love me, hate me, but please start thinking rationally. Question things.

Why is healthcare more expensive in America (where everything is cheaper than Europe and Canada) than in other countries?

Why do the insurance companies get away with having little competition?

Why don't we see more variance and differentiation in care models?

Why does the FDA restrict natural medications that can cheaply ease pain and prevent sickness?

Because the government requires businesses over 25 employees to provide an HMO, and HMOs are managed and licensed by the government, then aren't many of the insurance issues directly related to government initiatives and actions?​

 

There are pros and cons to both sides. But at the sametime do not use a Moore movie to get any facts. That you will not find in anything Moore does.

 

Again, I am not saying it is your fault or obligation to deal with anything, I am saying the consequences of what others do not deal with will spill over to you regardless.
I do not see how it is right or fair for you to be able to sue me for the inability of your private fire fighting firm to protect your house from a fire. I didn't set your house on fire, the fire spreads. I didn't sell drugs to your kid or break into your home, the criminals just found out they could hang out near my side of the street to case your home or solicit to your children.
I understand it is in my best interest to protect myself from these things, and I understand the notions of personal responsibility, but not everyone does or even cares. Not everyone is as smart as you or holds the same values you do and they never will.
Look I am really not trying to argue for a totally socialized medical system and I think we would both agree that Federal Government involvement in the medical system, especially pharmaceuticals is out of control and bloated and unhealthy for society. But I do not agree that private business or corporations have any more inclination towards the common good or are more opposed to greedy policy. In my opinion there can and should be a good balance between socialization and privatization. It occurs to me that perhaps this is the sort of issue the founders had in mind when they kept the division of the states instead of just calling it the United State. Social services seem to be better managed by the people who actually are affected directly by them than by a bunch of career politicians thousands of miles away.

One more thing, if I am too cheap to pay for the fire department we can assume I don't have fire insurance and we can assume after my house burns down I would have very little you could gain from suing me. Maybe some kindling for your next BBQ

 

What you're discussing is the impossibility of market-anarchy as a way for human beings to be in society, Earth. You're right. It doesn't work.

And if one acknowledges that such things - for example, as Stox earlier mentioned, socialized police and fire - are a part of living in civilized society, then one acknowledges that it is a matter of that society deciding what is, or isn't, a public priority.

And I think this is the heart of the actual debate, actually: is healthcare a national priority? Do people in the United States, like virtually every other modern industrial nation on earth, see healthcare as a social good, something to be provided to every citizen? So far, the answer has been no. It might change.

The general issue has discussed quite a bit, actually. If interested, here (and the discussions leading up to and ensuing from it), for one:

 

I understand that. And I do want to help people. But what I am saying is, that it is not moral to put people into a position where they have to perform an action.

As far as spillover, I don't think anyone else has a right to determine what is in my rational best interest, except me. If I am a "free man" and I own myself (not a slave) then why would I have to take orders from others on how I live my life? As long as I am not causing anyone else harm, I should be free to do, or do not as I please, yes?

The fire on your property is your problem if it spreads to mine. You did not take adequate measures to prevent a problem on your property from damaging mine.

If we follow your rationale, you could pollute and if it spread to my property, that's the way the air or water flows....

As far as crime, protecting my property is my problem. If your property is the easy target, you will get robbed. Crime is the simplest one, because we already have private security companies protecting malls, neighborhoods, banks and stuff.

That's fine. I do not want to impose my values on anyone else, anymore than I want them to impose their values on me.

That's the great thing about freedom. You can choose to be free or a slave or anything in between. When you are not free, your choices are a lot more limited.

Well, that is a fairly minarchist view and I can agree with it. While not perfect, it is certainly more ideal than the centralized federal power that attempts to run millions of lives only one way, from one building, in one city.

I could probably sue you for a portion of your property, or a lien against damages. I might be able to claim against future earnings or other assets you have.

I'm not an expert on law, certainly not what is a relatively new field of private contract and property rights law.

Don't get me wrong, if we're standing in the street and your house is on fire and you have no insurance or protection, it is probably in the neighborhood's best interest to help you by fighting the fire ourselves, or commissioning our service to protect your house. Charity exists in a free market. You can't have charity when the state control everything.

 

A decent read, if anyone is interested:

[URL="http://www.amazon.com/The History and Theory of English Contract Law (Foundations of Legal Liability)]English ContractFoundations-Liability/dp/1893122247[/URL]

 

and that would be great private mercenaries that answer only to their companies profit as security

we could have blackwater running the police in the US since they seem to no problem being corrupt and hyper violent in Iraq

we can make so if you need to call the police you have to pay up front, because hey no one should have to pay for your police problems.

Perhaps same with fire companies, if you can pay they put your house out if not fuck you

Same with ambulances, we can have everyone get a bar code, they can scan to see how much money you have. If its not enough they just let you die or whatever. Some enterprising businessman can make dog food of something out of the bodies that will stacking up in poor neighborhoods

 

I agree, Ferret. This is why there are such things as social goods, and why the notion of service for them on a fee-basis has never made sense to me.

 

Full marks for melodrama.

Uhm, yeah. That's sorta the idea.

"Running police"... You're mixing paradigms.

We could have security on demand, but I imagine people would use contracts, and there would be charities that provide security service on a volunteer or donation basis as well.

Not to mention that people don't leave their houses unlocked because there are police. The individual citizen still has a right, and possibly a personal obligation to defend his or her property. That's why we can bear arms. To resist tyrannical government, and to provide for our own defense.

Fundamental issue with understanding economics which I see perpetuated regularly on this forum. A company cannot stay in business if they charge more than their customers can pay. If a company is too expensive, they invite competition from lower priced services.

That's how a free market works.

That's kinda funny. I had a friend who was convinced that "people burgers" would be a hot selling item. You could buy the remains of celebrities and make them into burgers, and then sell them to the insanely rich.

Like a "Michael Jackson Burger" or a "Anna Nicole Smith Burger". Some people would probably keep them in the freezer until there was a special occasion.

As far as the rest, we're running over 10% poverty despite being the richest nation in the world. Police brutality is on the rise, and tazers are the newest torture weapon. Municipal unions are bankrupting local government, and fraud and corruption is rampant. Education is down the crapper, and the cost of medical care is inflating faster here than anywhere else in the world.

Obviously the system is starting to fray around the edges. You think my ideas are chaos? Wait until those unfunded liabilities come due and millions of Americans stop receiving medicare and social security. Or instead, we have to collapse our massive military presence, and the wolves accumulated by the last 60 years of empire come knocking on our door.

Freedom, free trade, charity and personal responsibility have always been the answers.

 

From my experience, private forces - "rent a cops" are precisely not the road to "liberty." Quite the opposite.

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/12/04/news/region_and_state/89b010c2cbf3d24c86256df20005e860.prt

Precisely my experience. An example...some see my experience in training tactical defense to public employees (cops, mental health workers, etc.) as an example of my "statist thuggery," but honest to god, it's to teach them how to do what they need to do - oftentimes, protecting a whacked individual from harming themselves, much less others - without going over the top and damaging someone needlessly.

The Ojibwa tribal police force, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, for instance, at least when I worked with them, got a few hours of watching videos on how to use the PR-24. In other words, how to bash the crap out of someone with a baton. Absent the kind of training that comes with regular, sustained and lengthy drilling - such as exists in public training academies, and decidedly doesn't exist in the private entities or poorly funded entities described above - you will see the kind of unconstitutional (and wrong) overreaction described.

Ferret, I know you've been at the receiving end, and that blows. I would say the answer isn't to go to fee-based or contractually based rent-a-cops, for the reasons discussed. The same for fire and other community needs. Basically, I agree with you; having profit being the driving force behind policing, fire, and other public needs is utterly untenable.

***
Anyway, yeah, you either accept the notion of social goods, or you reject it, and argue from a standpoint of market-anarchy, or other forms of absolute individualism. If you acknowledge the need for at least some measure of social goods in a polity, then it comes down to what the polity prioritizes in terms of what it will declare a universal need.

 

I would tend to agree with you.

They often 'from what I know' over step their powers, plus they are not held to the same liable to the same degree a government employed police officer is.

How do you claim your constitutional rights were violated when it was not the government violating them? I know it can be done, it however is much, much harder..

I do however think police power is far greater than it should be at the moment, with many victim less crimes being 'crimes' when they should not be.

---
I would like to add private security is great in some areas, but I surely could not see it being a serious replacement to an actual police force.

 

Well said, Grim, across the board. This has been my experience with private "officer" as well, and I am also sure we'd find common ground on abuses of power respecting victimless crimes as well.

 

I'm making a mostly theoretical argument. But remember, it's a different paradigm than police. Police serve the law and public at large. Security serves the person hiring them. Enormous difference.

Instead of having cops going around trying to watch everyone and everything, they would only be defending the persons and property that request their attention.

Basically an end to victimless crimes like making your own moonshine, prostitution, not cutting your own grass.

Again, paradigm shift. And I admit, it is theoretical. As I've said, I'm not 100% sure all social goods can be made private. Although ideally they should be.

 

http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ54p.police.html

It makes no sense to me, this notion of fee based or contract based paying for what should be deemed, in my opinion, public services - with those services only serving paying "customers."

 

lol, yeah thats all great unless you are born poor and your neighbor is raping and pimping you out

The average citizen even armed is still a creme puff compared to many of the criminals out there

lol, the answer to that is high standards for hire and more accountability

not mercenaries

as long as we have nukes/wmd stackpiles I don't anyone is going to be invading

 

Wanted to follow up on this. It's similar to the problem we have with health care, and that's why I keep bringing up paradigm.

If we can't redefine what law enforcement or security is, then we can't make dramatic changes. And likewise, if our simple minded goal is to only get everyone health care, not address costs, coverage or quality then we're just tinkering around the edges.

Folks say, you can't talk about health insurance before there was insurance. For no rational reason, they rule out considering a very different approach.

HMOs are a construct of trying to alter the system. They have only been around 35 years. So to say, we can't go to a system without HMOs, seems really short sighted to me. Sure we can. It may or may not be better, that is the test.

And likewise the argument with security vs. enforcement. Our legal system is completely out of control. I watched two great videos this morning on pleading the 5th amendment, and it's staggering to understand how we are all criminals, and our natural tendency is to incriminate ourselves, considering that almost everything we do is illegal under one law or another.

So instead of tinkering and changing 2 or 5 or 50 laws, maybe we actually need to look at law enforcement, and decide, should I be paying for people to seek out crimes, even where they do not exist (victimless ~ prostitution, dope smoking, making moonshine), and potentially indict me for my own victimless behavior, or should we look at protecting life and property, enforcing contract and personal liberty?

Because out in rural country, people take care of themselves and their disputes quite often by themselves, providing their own protection and their own dispute resolution, without constantly running to the police or being subjected to such scrutiny. In the absence of the law, we can and should protect ourselves. But with the presence of the law, it seems our tendency is to impose our moral upon others.

The police stops being someone you can trust, and instead someone that you fear. And surely that paradigm needs to be addressed.

 

I believe very much the same as you do.

All victimless crimes should no longer be a crime, police force and power should be slashed. The police should be used for fighting true crime, murder, rape, robbery, etc.