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

Thanks for your thoughts, Grim, appreciate your points.

On the abuse of the system - if you'll go back to the Klein article that I linked to, some interesting thoughts, data on how much actually exists, and ways different systems have dealt with it - France in particular. There is no denying a get out of work/paying for X card, without approaching it very, very carefully, is a disaster. Anyway, you might find the article interesting.

 

I somewhat agree with the former myself, and the latter is a very good question.

Of course, I couldn't have this argument in (sic) good faith if I admitted to playing Devil's Advocate.

 

I must have missed it, will look back through.

One person for example had been trying for years to get on SSI. She knew others who tried and finally got on it.

She has had literally every disease under the book, hypochondriac to say the least. She tried originally to get under it because her son was hard to handle!

She finally after years got on it for and you'll love this, basically it was ruled she was mental because of her attempts to illegally get on it! She had to sue to get on it as she was denied over and over. She won the law suit against the government, got back pay and then some.

She now lives off the government, doctor shops like crazy 'yeah she also is addicted to pain killers' Plus now she's going back to school simply because she's bored, all at the tax payers expense.

She claims she can't work, yet she has no problem doing anything and everything, it's simply a mess.

Then another person I know got nocked up at 16 'purposely' she has already been on SSI for years as her mother married a guy who had aids, he died but they still for some reason were able to get the daughter on SSI even though the mother was only married to this guy for about a year, did not adopt or have rights to the child. This guy also had not worked for most of his life, he lived off of SSI.

Now this girl collects welfare, she is married but her husband doesn't make much. All she will get is a paper delivery job. She refuses to work.
The government actually just upgraded their living arrangements as they would not pay for the place she lived in, it was not 'nice enough' So people who work it's ok for, but if you're on aid it's not. She got moved into a nice condo type of apartment. Anyways they were about to kick her off aid yet again, and bam she's pregnant again!

I have so many stories like this it's sickening. These are people I know full well, it is truth not just 'he said/she said'

It makes me sick, people who actually need help get screwed because of people taking advantage of the system!

---
I forgot to mention the person who got on SSI now tries to get everyone and anyone on SSI she can.
She's tried getting an 18 year old on it because he 'couldn't work' no reason, just he didn't like to work.
She tried getting another person on it because her daughter has a basic form of diabetes.
Another lady had diabetes she also tried getting her on. She finds anything she can and tries to get people on it for her hobby!

 

depends on the people, there were people in miami complaining when fema wasn't supply water like 24-48 hours after a storm

personally I think unless you a disabled, if you can't take of yourself for 48 hours after a storm which has been coming for week, then you should sterlized

so in your perfect free market there will be no corporations, all businesses will be sole proprietor ships?

So instead of corps we will bring back boss tweed?

are the roads your property? maybe I will hire the bloods to set up security check points, and if you hire a security company we will give them 50% of the stuff we seize out of the cars to stand by and do nothing

they already have systems similar to this in third world countries and some ghettos here in the US

back before they cleaned up NYC there were areas you could walk in the south bronx without being robbed , because the drug gangs wouldn't allow muggers to cause problems with their potential sales.

 

Oh, the great humanitarian ferret77. You do realize this is a thread where we seek health care solutions, not eugenics?

Or partnerships. It doesn't have to be a free market to outlaw corporations. They only exist by judicial fiat. They are a construct, like the office of the President only exists because of the Constitution.

Bad analogy. Tweed was a politician who abused his power as a politician. We're talking about removing the power to be corrupt from politicians, and returning the power of the purse to the people. Hard for a politician to give out sweetheart contracts like Tweed, when he doesn't have any tax revenues to hand out!

The conversation started getting ridiculous a long time ago, but for the sake of tying up loose ends, yes roads are property.

Theft is against the law. Just because you can hire a company doesn't mean you can hire a company to steal under free markets, anymore than you could hire one to do the same today....

I was mocking you with my clever example, but thanks for reinforcing it.

Try to keep an open mind about some of this stuff. I'm challenging convention, and when people aren't resorting to childish name calling, or flat out fabricating half truths, either through ignorance or slander we can probably learn something from questioning the status quo, and then the questions that get raised in return against unconventional thinking.

The important thing is, we're talking. One of the biggest mistruths ever propagated is that we shouldn't talk politics or religion. I believe the contrary. Question everything. The pursuit of truth is worthwhile. The greatest inventors and thinkers in human history never confined themselves to the status quo or conventions handed down by our "betters".

 

Yep, that is special. And it happens alot.

It seems to me we are on the same page, that the need to deal with things requires specificity.

I share with you a disagreement with the notion of a private, profit-based police, fire, national defense force, and some government involvement in healthcare isn't a bad thing, depending on what that thing is.

I also respect your opinion on whether healthcare should or shouldn't be a public good, in the same vein as the other public needs we've discussed.

I mentioned the French model, which I think is interesting as a point of discussion, specifically as it seems to address the issue of "insurance abuse," as well as many other issues. I'm not even saying it's a perfect exemplar, to be embraced in toto, or even adopted in part - more to my point, it is an example of a flexible response to a public need, that seeks to optimize good things (great care, provided to all) and limit bad things (insurance abuse, poor care, bad wait times and healthcare delivery, limited choices).

Here's Klein's section on France (NOTE: sorry for the red and black bolds below. In lengthy pieces, the only way I know to lead the eyes to points that I think are germane and important, figuring if anyone wants, they can (and I would hope, would) read everything. Anyway, sorry for any obnoxious effect on the eyes):

France has a resident doctor/patient ratio of about 3/1000, while we apparently rest at around 3/2700. Waiting lines? Not much of a problem, apparently.

Choice is also built into the plan, for both the insured and practitioners (briefly):

(Much more; very interesting. See http://www.codebluenow.org/vital-signs/second-opinion/topics/French%20Health%20Care%20System

and - a person's comparative account of healthcare in the U.S., v. France; please note she is a cancer survivor, and required care in both countries:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4647483

I know in my case, I have had far too many weeks-to-months' long struggle on the phone with my health insurance provider (going back decades, for at least two major medical situations I have unfortunately found myself in) to do just what the lady was talking about, getting them to cough it up. I'm in such a struggle now - two ER visits, which I've talked about, totalling close to $20,000. I continue to receive threatening letters from all the various entities - hospital, doctors, anestheologists, diagnostics, and though I have spent countless hours in talking and writing, we're still smack in the middle. Joy.

I'm not even saying the French model is the be-all and end-all. I'm saying it seems to me to represent a mindful, creative approach to something the French nation believes is a national, public good - healthcare for themselves.

It goes back to my original point. If you accept the very concept of public goods, and do not believe everything - police, fire, national defense, for those on this thread advocating a form of anarchy - should be privatized, then the discussion comes down to whether health delivery should be a national priority on the same plane as these other necessary public goods. I know you don't believe so, Grim, and I can respect that, as I said. I just thought it was a good point of discussion to see how some countries look at solutions, and to your example of SSI abuse, how France does what it does.

At any rate, a far cry, to me, from believing decent healthcare for our nation will best come from private entrepreneurs, on the basis of the drive for profit, or charity. From my perspective, this makes no more sense than believing your average "private army" company seeking to optimize profit, as discussed earlier, or charity and the benevolence of wealthier citizens everywhere, will pay for police servicing in beleagured neighborhoods. And I would say that redounds negatively to all of us.

 

I support social goods. The truly free market does not hold morals. It is not concerned with right or wrong or good or evil or what is best for the nation. It is about money. Social systems and goods impose this morality. If you don't like the morality imposed I understand you wanting to change these systems but a truly free market without any such systems will have no problem running the poor under, damning the treatable sick to death, pimping out your children to pedo's, or selling crack to your 5 year old.
On a side note, there was something in the discussion about police forces where someone said they would start a Bloods for Hire firm to patrol the streets, and the reply was that such a thing would be illegal, without police who is going to enforce that legality?

 

You are right, that the truly free market does not make moral decisions. You have the opportunity to make moral decisions in the free market.

"What is best for the nation" has been in the past, when we generated prosperity and did not just print money to fake it, was free markets. American ingenuity and quality. The Soviet and Eastern block countries did not produce innovative products. They were not known for their high quality. That's what social goods, and socialist ownership of the means of production will get you.

The failure in the social goods line of thinking (not GRIMs, but your approach) is that there is this myth, that the government can make men good by passing laws. That they can save lives by allocating health care. That they can spread democracy by invasion. In a sense, that government is the new God, and at the same time, the ultimate tool. By passing Bills, humanity advances. Without government, humanity stagnates. Man is helpless without society, when in reality it is society that cannot exist without man.

I posed an interesting idea earlier. People argue that the minimum wage raises the standard of living. I think this is totally false. Because if it was true, then the government could raise the minimum wage high enough until we are all millionaires.

The reason why government can only shuffle pieces in the game of life, is that it doesn't actually produce anything. We produce things, the government allocates them.

The Austrians believe that government is incapable of assessing need based on election cycles alone. But because it does not allow people to make the decisions to trade off between war or health care, free education or retirement plans, it cannot properly allocate goods. Only people in the marketplace, at the time of consumption or purchase, truly know what they want, what they need and what they can afford.

In reality, our resources are finite. Surgery has a cost. A bandaid has a cost. Air is free because it is in infinite supply to what we can consume, and only if we had an infinite # of doctors, hospitals or bandaids, could we actually have them for "free".

But we don't. Everytime we fix prices, like the minimum wage, there is a tradeoff, not unlike the tradeoffs when we spend our limited wealth. We might want gold, chocolate, new clothes, an expensive car and a vacation in the Bahamas. But if we only have $100, we might have to settle for a chocolate and some new clothes and sacrifice our ambition for the car and vacation.

I've repeatedly brought up our current economic situation, and how people intend to pay for insuring an additional 47 million citizens. No one has an answer. Either they know we cannot, because we are already broke, or they can't figure it out. And I really believe there is no way to do it, not with our current obligations, not without trading in the car and vacation for the chocolate and new clothes.

So it's easy to say you believe in social goods. It's easy to say you believe in the legislative fiat of government. But there are no unicorns, and the government can only move pieces, not make new ones.

Well, that is the key discussion. How is it imposed? By theft? By threat of violence (incarceration)?

If you're saying that we have to impose morality by theft and threat of violence, isn't that obviously immoral? For example, there are homeless people without food. Can they move into your home and take half of the food from your plate? Can they sleep with you in your bed, and in the morning, get dressed in your clothes?

Sharing is moral is it not? Are you ready and willing to share everything you have with everyone who does not?

And if so, what stops you from doing so today? Because no one has passed a law and threatened to take you to jail yet? If you really believe in morality, then shouldn't you be working and sharing everything you earn until you and the people without have equalized your housing, food and possessions?

This is just foolish. Economically, anecdotally, historically, there is no evidence (that I know of) to back this up.

Why would doctors not treat someone for $5, than treat no one for $0? Why would you not share your resources in a free market? As above, are you only a moral, caring being when the state threatens to throw you in jail if you do not share?

In a free market, the poor have upward mobility and likewise, the rich can be knocked down to poverty if they manage their money poorly or choose to get lazy and consume without producing.

In the current system, the American poor have stayed at the same level, for 40 years. The middle class is shrinking into the lower class. The Drug War is a big loss (probably because the CIA imports the coke). Health care costs are skyrocketing, drugs are expensive and people who pay taxes for others care as GRIM does, cannot afford to insure themselves.

The system is grossly inequitable, and yet you continue to argue for health care as a social good. Like your irrational argument that a parent will pimp their child to a pedophile before they take a second job, sell their wedding ring, or take out a loan for care, the conclusions you are drawing simply don't add up.

So leaving all of the moral arguments aside, I will ask the practical question again.

We are $9 trillion in debt. The dollar is crashing.

We're $550 billion into an Iraq war that Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz estimates will cost $3 trillion. We already owe $60 trillion we don't have in social security and medicare over the next 30 years.

How will you pay for socialized care for 47 million more Americans?

How will you buy something when you have no money and you have exhausted all credit?

 

I actually said many posts ago that I was not for totally socialized medicine, and let me clarify that now by saying totally socialized insurance, but that some good medium between the two would be best. You seem to believe there is a one way for all time to handle these things. A permanent solution and I think that changes with the people and with the times.

I also didn't say I agree with the morality imposed on me at all times and as a matter of fact I don't think sharing is a moral imperative, you seem to. I also don't think morals=good. Or that there is a universally applicable good or moral thing to do in all situations. I just pointed out that social goods fill that role and free markets do not.
I actually can't say that it is ludicrous for people to pimp out their children because even though it is illegal and punishable by "kidnapping" people still do it. Not everyone is a good parent in my estimation, but certain tax funded (I hate income tax too btw but there are other forms of taxation) institutions are designed to make them at least try or give up their children (or have them kidnapped as you would put it) or to just do better, hell some parents are just geniunely stupid with IQ's in the 80's and without these services would not think to bath their children or refrain from giving them alchohol.
At some point The State as you see it is correct, a monster that attempts to sucker us all into submission and servitude, but closer to home social goods and services have made my town a better place to live. It may not have made any particular person a better person but I enjoy the parks and I enjoy being able to dial 911 even if my wallet is empty. I ain't saying our social systems are not broken in some areas, I am just saying free market isn't the magic bandaid for us as a nation, although it might fix all your problems.

 

Paying for some basic form of medical coverage is not only easy, but parts of it are already in place. Something both of us agree on is that the Feds have gotten out of hand. Cut spending. Cut spending on BS and things that are not NEEDED. As a society we seem to confuse need and want even at the government level. Cut the shit out of spending and you would be amazed what we could afford to provide, hell we might even be able to cut taxes and provide "free" (quotes cuz we all know its not) medical care at the same time if we weren't paying for BS. If the news channels where to spend 10 mins a night discussing the national budget that might go a long way in clearing out some of that BS spending right there.

 

Ok. And I understand that it is almost impossible to escape the "mixed" paradigm, because there are people who will insist that they want free health care and the government must provide that.

I just think that a mixed system is only a minor improvement on complete socialization. In fact, it's what we have now. The government drives up prices, and people can't afford the private insurance. But I digress...

No. I believe that the free market, which allows multiple systems to develop, whatever consumers demand (that can actually be provided, sorry no fountain of youth) will be the system. It may be different in your neighborhood and mine. From Vermont to Utah, we could have 50 different systems, but they would reflect the choices of the consumers who use those systems, not one universal mega system that offers no alternatives, and doesn't respond to the needs of the individual consumer.

This paragraph is incredibly confusing and as I read it over and over, I have no idea what you are saying. Social goods fill a role you don't agree with, which is a negative of free markets, but you don't like that role anyways. Totally contradictory.

If I come in your home, and take your stuff, or tell you that you have to give me 25% of your stuff annually, that would be theft or extortion. When the government does it, we call it taxes.

The "hammer" that we pay our taxes, is the threat of imprisonment. Continuing my analogy, if you didn't pay my extortion fee, I could lock you in my basement for a year or three.

When the government locks you up for not paying taxes, it's because you committed a crime. You didn't pay their extortion fee, so they kidnap you. If I do that, it's a crime.

Sorta like how the FED counterfeits money, and it is legal. But if you or I did it, it would be a crime.

Just wanted to make that clear. If people WANT to pay taxes, then they should be voluntary. To force someone to pay, is coercion. You can't have your public goods, unless someone is forced to pay under threat of imprisonment. Which is why I think you see the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum typically arguing for socialism or redistribution. They get an advantage at someone else's expense.

I'm not saying that the people without are dirty scabs or anything, but that the system is so stacked against those people gaining upward mobility, that they have no choice but to hope for government redistribution to rise a little in their standard of living, even if they can't rise in the social structure.

As I said, I can't admit I am playing Devil's Advocate, because that would undermine my credibility, but I am definitely trying to get some people to think.

I'm a little scared of how big government is getting now, but deep down, I hope and pray that man will persevere no matter how heavy the chains that are put on him. Yes, social goods have probably helped you. However, you never see the victims that pay for it. That's the beauty of taxation. It separates the end user from the price and the person being squeezed.

I agree the free market is not a bandaid. It is not the government fallacy of unlimited hospital beds, bandaids and doctor visits. It is stretching every last bandaid, doctor and bed as far as they will go, to cover as many people as possible, while wasting the least amount.

 

I like a mixed system, I think ours can be improved and that would be a better route than tossing it in the wind and moving to big business to fix it.

My point about morality is that what someone thinks is moral is not necessarily good and further that what someone decides is good for them is not universally "good", or at least that I don't believe it is. Total freedom of the market is a good example. You seem to think that is good and I think whether it is good or not is totally relative to the situation and even then it's subjective. Social goods and services are based on what the majority have seen as the "right" or moral thing to do in most cases, when that opinion changes so does the social service, perhaps a little too slowly at times but thats the monster of big government. Another example is your belief that sharing and charity is a good thing, I think that is totally subjective and relative to the circumstance. Giving to Hamas for example. I personally think thats a bad idea but I understand how someone else might not.

See I am willing to trade some of my wishes for the rest of society. I love the idea of utopian anarchy in theory but the fact is I am not naive to think that everyone is willing to take on personal responsibility for their lives or that people are actually evolved enough to govern themselves. The founding fathers seem to agree with me, why else would they have limited the democratic process they way they did. And as times have changed we have opened up that process, not enough for me (wtf is with the electoral college?) but there is still more suffrage today than ever before.

I see your point about theft and the government and extortion etc. I just don't agree with it. Government is not a person or corporate entity (I agree those are bad in my paradigm, LLC is a nice way of saying screw sole proprietors) the government is representative of the people (or should be) and as a citizen you have the choice to change citizenship or abide by the laws of the society you live in. If you don't like those laws run for office, start or join an activist movement, or break them. The FED is BS in my opinion too, but until you Paulites convince a good portion of citizens of that I will suffer it and you will too I suppose, I don't think you are the unabomber type I am all for a peaceful revolution in our society I just don't think your free market anarchy is gonna fit the bill for me.

 

If you think that is what I am advocating, then I have wasted a lot of time trying to explain myself and replying to you.

I kinda understand what you are saying now, I'm just not sure it is relevant at all. I suppose my fundamental question is, does everyone have the right to freedom of choice. If yes, then my system is the one that meets that and still allows doe people to choose communism, socialism, fascism, whatever. They just can't choose that for everyone else.

On the other hand, if you feel people should not be able to make their own individual decisions, but rather participate in a group, whether they agree or not, then I can see how my system of opportunity might be a little too broad for a more cohesive agenda.

It comes down to if I want small government or big government, should I have the right to choose that? If I can't make choices for me, then who can? And under that circumstance, what difference is it from being owned or enslaved by someone?

I don't have a problem with you making a choice to trade off for the "good of society". I believe you are entitled to that. I think you can have that in a free market.

But you're saying that because not everyone wants to be free, then everyone cannot be free. That to me, seems to be a major philosophical gap.

The notion that man cannot govern himself (in my opinion) is silly, when the alternative is to be ruled by the Bush and Quayles, the Clinton and Gores and the Bush and Cheneys. It's not like we pick our most morally, intellectually and spiritually superior members to lead us. We actually pick the people who would be lucky to have a lifetime job at McDonalds. Hick town playboys who have a blood lust and obsession with control and narcissism.

Like, God could probably rule us (any number of his interpretative forms). That would be a superior being. But all the government really is, are an administrative body. Unfortunately, one that controls the law, law enforcement and the purse, making it the ultimate power in the land, and completely unrestrained by the people.

You can't change citizenship. You have to apply for citizenship in other countries. They don't automatically accept you.

We're limited by the type of governments that exist in this world. Communists have limited choices. Anarcho-communists none. Monarchists? Pretty slim pickings. Feudalists? Wow, I'm not sure they have anywhere to go.

So a man can't live how he wants to live, even if it causes no one else harm. How sad is that?

I coulda swore the Bill of Rights says something about "consent of the governed..."

Now as to your assertion that government is "special", do we call theft something else if a certain person does it? I mean, if a blue collar autoworker kidnaps someone, is that kidnapping, but if a bank worker with a degree in finance does it, it is called something else? Of course not. We don't judge crimes by who committed them, but by the act itself.

So a government that counterfeits, kidnaps and steals is no different than the street hoodlum who does the same.

Cool. I don't think you are a kidnapper, thief or counterfeiter, even though you seem ok with it....

I'm for minarchy. There's a poster who follows me around and accuses me of being an anarchist. That's just passive aggressive slander.

But I don't think you understand free markets if you think it won't fit you. The whole point of free markets, is that they can fit every individual, because everyone can do, and get what they want (provided it does not hurt others or compromise their property).

If your point is that you don't think you should be free, then I guess I can understand that. I think it's either ignorance or Stockholm Syndrome because it is difficult for me to understand why someone would not want to be free, but hey, whatever makes you happy. Just please stop threatening to kidnap me if you can't extort my wealth, or if I complain too much about you counterfeiting it.

 

Well, as this "passive-aggressive slanderer" is passive-aggressively being accused of slander, I will respond.

In this thread, alone, G has voiced his opposition to publically funded police and fire forces, and advocated their replacement by a privately funded, for-profit system led by entrepreneurs. He has voiced a strenuous objection to all taxation as "tyranny." I will reiterate my earlier post, which includes a definition of market anarchy:

Some time ago, viewing and engaging in his many threads, I concluded that G's view is an anarchist's view. My conclusion is based on his started views, and it isn't personal. As I have said before, G has, based on my views, apparently, consistently named me a socialist and my views socialism. I don't take it personally, nor do I call it slander. I just disagree. This is what adults engaged in conversation do - they don't whine "slander" at every corner. Something along the lines of:

Which is a nice thought, and it would be nice if it was actually meant.

Respecting what this thread is supposed to be about, if he cannot conceive of a public police force or fire department, he cannot conceive of any version of publically funded healthcare. Hence, a waste of time, really, as this thread will go in circles for weeks.

I will also say that once again, he will ask for good faith discussion, but regardless of who it is, as now, it comes down to sly attempts, at best, to say all others are morons, and G is the holder of the flame lighting Parnassus. In other words:

when squared with:

Well, let's just say it can be used to grow veggies, about it.

It seems to me that it is narcissistic arrogance to presume responses are "following around," especially from a poster who has spent dozens of posts pursuing an off-topic defense of anarchist ideology - and this is the customary approach. But it is typical.

Earth, you have been right throughout, and have made your points well, from my perspective.

How's that campaign with the state/admin going, G - you know, the one where you want DP to ban me over a "campaign" of "lies, harassment, and attacks?"

 

Mixing theories or paradigms is like mixing themes for a research paper, what exactly is it? Variety is good, pick free-market.

 

Rob told me that he told you to ignore me.

Apparently (based on your numerous posts to me, following me around) you have not taken his advice.

He also advised that I ignore you (advice which I took). However, you continue to post to me, about me, and slandering me. So I merely pointed out to earth, that your statements of slander to me are incorrect, and that I do not consider myself an anarchist (which if one knows anything about anarchy, would agree, as I do not fit the profile of being apolitical).

So, by all means, I will continue to ignore you, and you can continue to taunt, chase and harass me. I think it's obvious to everyone here, you're trying to play the bully role instead of taking the high ground.

And that in itself is good enough for me as you do more to undermine your own cred. than I could by arguing with you.

Have a nice day.

 

I can't speak to what Rob told you in response to your appeal to secure my banning. I know he just wondered, probably like most, why we can't seem to ignore each other, and he didn't want to get involved in what seems to be a personal spat. I don't blame him.

This thread has gone on for 15 pages. You and I have both made points, and a lot of them concern the nature of private v. public funding of community services. I do not wish to dialogue with you, but will with others, both those with whom I agree, and those with whom I disagree - my exchange with Grim is a good example of what can happen between people interested in an honest exchange.

I will not accept your mischaracterization of what I do as slander, when it isn't, any more than your characterization of myself as a socialist, and what I believe in politically/economically as socialism.

If any of this bothers you, perhaps you should stop posting generally, as this is the nature of a public forum.

 

You embrace mixed martial arts training, Nate, I would guess, as you wish to take the best of everything to make for a better martial artist.

Nothing extraordinarily different here, in my opinion.

 

Case closed IMHO. I think Rob's advice is sound. I will be continuing to ignore you. Should you not choose to take his advice and be the bigger man, that will be obvious for all to see.

 

That's true and a good point. However the 2 theories being discussed seem to be idealogical polar opposites. I figure it would be more like learning how to lose a fight and win it at the same time.