That's my problem too. I get a Score:2 post first that's rolled up, then a Score:3 post, before hitting the first Score:5! Correct.
Sorry, D2 is buggy. Incorrect.
Seems to me that 1939 is tied with 1954, so 1939 is "also" in the top 10. I suppose then only five of the 11 top 10 are pre-WWII, if we want to look at it that way. I am not sure it's valid to put 1954 ahead of 1939 just because it has a higher 5-year mean, if that is what you did.
And yes, it doesn't change the pattern, or even any of the theories, but it does change the rhetoric. The "pro-warming" people have been saying for awhile now that because "N of the top M hottest years are in the last O years" or because 1998 was the hottest, that this somehow proves anthropogenic global warming. The data didn't actually support that, of course -- that is, it showed the rankings, but it wasn't significant enough to support such a conclusion -- but they've been saying it anyway. So this takes away one lame but successful rhetorical point so we can have fewer distractions to focus on the actual science.
Local taxes, of course, not federal. And, the fire department is necessary to protect MY home from being destroyed by YOUR fire. Which is why I still favor the CDC's existence. So taxes are evil if done by the feds and fine if done locally? I never implied anything of the sort. Way to ignorantly walk into the middle of a discussion! What I meant was that the fire department is properly a power reserved to the state, and that as per the Tenth Amendment, it is -- like universal health care -- illegal for the federal government to control it. Not evil, illegal.
Although there are practical problems with it too, of course, which is WHY it is illegal. Most importantly, if the federal government controls something, then YOU have less control over it. The more local the decision is made, the more power you have to effect change. The more free you are.
Not to mention that you like having your freedoms removed if it is something you want, but against it if it is something you don't want. You trade your freedom like everyone else, yet get into the "what about my freedom" whine when it is something you don't like. That's what I call a hypocrite. Do you have a single example of that? I doubt it. But feel free to back up your claim. Go ahead.
Anyhow, Ithink I'm probably not clear on what exactly it is that you mean by lost liberties; is it that you think I can't pay a doctor here out of my own pocket (which isn't really the case, there are private clinics)? Or that I'm somehow restricted in who I can see (again, not at all the case)? Or does it come down to being taxed for something I may never use (which is where I was thinking of the fire department above)? It depends on the specific plan, of course. Single-payer plans, by either forcing you into their plan (by outlawing private care, as Quebec tried to do) or at the least by drastically increasing (doubling, if not more) your cost if you opt-out, explicitly or effectively take away many choices. Doctor choice is one thing (though again, it depends on the plan), but more important is the general category of treatment options. I can right now shop around for an insurer that will cover, say, alternative or experimental treatments that others won't. And obviously, the government-run plan cannot cover EVERYTHING, because then it would be abused. So I lose that freedom of choice to pick an insurer (or to pick NO insurer).
Do you think that is a rational analogy? Absolutely. OK. I don't.
The fire department is paid for by your taxes. Local taxes, of course, not federal. And, the fire department is necessary to protect MY home from being destroyed by YOUR fire. Which is why I still favor the CDC's existence.
See Pudge, your government has taken away your liberties by forcing this on you! Yes, it has. I never said otherwise. I just said the analogy was poor, because there are important differences as to why the violation of my rights in forcing me to pay for the fire department is justified, that do not apply to universal health care. Another is that most of us don't really care about choices taken away by the existence of the fire department, because how many choices do you really need? They come, they put out the fire.
You should have the right to buy fire department coverage from the Kaiser Permanente Fire Department or the Blue Cross FD! Of course you should. And you do.
Same as the military; your taxes are paying for them. Why not go back to having militia everywhere? Um, we still do. We have both, as the Constitution explicitly allows.
Hire the best guns for your money. Shrug. You can do that in addition, if you wish. Many have. Indeed, even the government does.
Not many rational people would argue that the Military is glorified welfare (both for the poor and industry) anyhow. Agreed. So I am not sure why you brought it into the discussion.
Now, of course, I've taken this to a stretch. But in reality the fire department will gladly come to your home, save your life by dragging you out and get you to a hospital. The hospital will then gladly toss you to the curb after doing the bare minimum if you don't have insurance. False. If this comparison is to work, the fire department saving your life, then it has to be compared to the hospital saving your life: and hospitals are required to attempt to save your life, regardless of ability to pay (unlike fire departments, which have no such legal obligation).
no one is willing to have their freedom taken away What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to make medical decisions for yourself, including who to have as your insurer (if anyone), how much you are willing to pay, and so on.
The "freedom" to not be able to change jobs because no potential employers provide health care that will take good enough care of you?
The "freedom" to travel an extra 40 miles to a hospital your insurance company has made a deal with, instead of the one just down the street?
The "freedom" to never start your own business because a pre-existing condition means no individual insurer will accept you? Hm. You obviously don't understand the concept of freedom. In fact -- and this is really not at all debatable -- you always have the freedom to change jobs, to not travel 40 extra miles, and to start your own business.
Also, you do not understand anything I've said, because my argument has never been that the current system is good, so attacking the status quo has no impact on my argument, which is that we can and should reform the system without a government takeover (indeed, that we should have LESS government involvement).
The current health care system is anti-freedom... False.
... and anti-free market. Very true, which is why almost all of my ideas for reform are about reducing government regulation and control in order to increase the effect of market forces to reduce costs and improve care (as well as, naturally, availability).
Being required to have sufficient insurance limits mobility, a core value of a free market. Most states in this country do not require you to have health insurance, and I absolutely oppose all such requirements.
I don't understand people that aren't interested in making sure that everybody has the freedom to choose any job or health care they want without having to worry about the costs of their care. I don't understand people who think our decisions should be divorced from the costs of those decisions.
Yes. Its [sic] a basic service. Just like police, just like fire, just like the patent office, just like the post road. No, it's not.
You know the founding fathers never thought of the internet [sic] so because its [sic] not in the constitution [sic] we should not have universal access to it....right Correct, the federal government should not provide universal access to the Internet.
....like we have universal access to the roads we should have the same access to the Net and Basic health care. Also, universal access to GameBoys.
Its [sic] a cost socity [sic] should share and distribute equally. No, it shouldn't.
Just like education, and 1000x other things the government does for the general welfare. Most of which are blatantly unconstitutional, because "general welfare," as James Madison made clear, was not a blank check for the federal government to ignore the fact that it is a limited government of enumerated powers; it was merely a brief summary of powers to be listed later in Article I, Section 8, which includes the post-roads and patent office, but not fire or police.
Oh, sorry that you can't elaborate your argument further. Do you know what "non sequitur" means? It means I am saying you were saying something completely irrelevant. There is no argument for me to make against something that is beside the point, other than to point out the fact that it is beside the point.
YES! No.
Is it "justice" to take away someone elses life in the name of your pocket-books liberty? Why are you asking that question, since none of it applies to what I am talking about? Very curious. I certainly never defended my right to take anyone else's life (except in self-defense, or in defense of another, where a life is directly threatened), and the only liberty I was talking about in this context had nothing to do with any pocket-book.
That's a straw man logical fallacy.
I am in this middle that is being more and more screwed right now in ways you cannot even imagen and being pushed to the bottom. I make $46k a year. I am $3000 away from being able to be on Medicade for my wife, my company offers no insurance and I have two children with another baby on the way. Maybe I fucked up and my wife did by having another kid. You know what? Its not the fucking poor kids fault that now her normal doctor which takes medicade wont even see us without an extra $1250 out of pocket up front. Guess what? I don't just have 1250 laying around. I tried to work out a payment plan. $700 up front. No. $800. No. $900. No Before we got married she could just walk right in and get first class service. Now we get married as (as some on the right would say is the only proper way to raise a family) and she can't even get an OB exam. You know what happens when my family of four gets sick out of the blue in the winter? We get fucked! It happend last year. Being set back $800 in medical costs in one month blows dude. Yawn. This, of course, is also a straw man, because you are attacking the status quo as an argument to me, but I am not defending the status quo. So this argument you are constructing has nothing to do with my argument.
This is just fucked. There is no other way to look at it. So? Why do you (apparently) think the only way to deal with the problem is government-run health care? It's obviously not true.
Why does every man woman and child not have basic dental? Shrug. Why should they? I've never seen a rational argument for it, other than "I just think they should." Fine, and I think everyone man woman and child should have a GameBoy.
I'd pay more in taxes for that. Good for you.
What about eye glasses and contacts? What about them?
Why don't we give LASIK to every poor underclass person that cannot afford it? Feel free to do that yourself.
We as a socity could and we could share the costs. Feel free to give to charities that would do this, then.
We already do it for the GODDAMN ROADS, WE ALREADY FUCKING DO IT FOR DEFENCE. IT ALREADY DO IT FOR POLICE. These are basic fucking services and we all sholder the costs. That's because it's the only reasonable way for those things. Quite obviously, there are many other ways to handle medical care.
The middle and rich shoulder more, AS THEY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE TO LOSE! No, what you mean is, "they should pay more because they are a minority and we have the power to take it from them." Pretty tyrannical and authoritarian of you, dontcha think?
Just think about it. Then do something to change it. I do. I work with elected officials to actually reduce costs for families. What do YOU do?
Don't play devils advocate, you cannot win here. Perhaps that's true, but only because you're not making an actual argument, so there's nothing to defeat.
""There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and "" the supreme court would probably find that violates interstate commerce blah blah. I can't see any potential Constitutional violations here. (That wasn't my idea, for the record.)
""2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan)."" ugh, no. get rid of all the stupid deductions. Well, it's a good idea, given the income tax system we have, which isn't going away. Sure, we can say income tax is a bad thing, but that's not going to happen any time soon, so we need to work within the system we have, and deductions are a good way to do that. (That wasn't my idea, either, but I think it's probably a good thing.)
the feds need to... begin collecting property tax, since much of fed govt activity relates to property. I think that's a terrible idea. The last thing we need is the feds getting involved in the determining the valuation of our property. And what happens if you don't pay? They take your property? But what if you paid the state tax and not the federal tax? Then the feds take it (even though by rights it belongs to the state), so they start paying taxes to the state, and get nothing out of it in return unless the can sell it... talk about "ugh"!
I am all for getting rid of federal income tax, but no way should the feds collect property tax. If we're going to talk about the unlikely anyway, let's just say that we can force the federal government to cut spending, and then we can cut the income tax without replacing it with anything. But if we must replace it, it should be with a sales tax.
What about states providing healthcare, for instance by collecting a tax similar in intent to worker's compensation, such that people's healthcare is paid for? This, then, would be a power devolved upon a state, pretty much as per the constitution. In this way, the middleman (insurers) is done away with, as well as a good deal of the official paths for profit motive from people's misfortune.
Do you object to that kind of plan?
Yes, but for different reasons. And it depends on whether this plan would be a fallback, or whether it would replace private insurance. And it depends on whether privately funded health care would still be legal.
There's just so many details and I have various problems with them, in different ways. For example, the Massachusetts health care plan makes it required for every resident in the state to have health insurance. I see that as absolutely unconstitutional: it's a tax on being alive. If I want to not have insurance, that is my right as a human being.
Then there's Quebec's law (which was overturned in 2005, I believe) which went the other way, and made it illegal to privately fund medically necessary health services, on the grounds that the government, and no one else, should do it. I see that as a fundamental violation of human rights, too: as long as the product or service itself is not illegal (and certainly, the health care is not illegal, only the method of payment), then I should be able to acquire it, should I have the means.
And then there's normal single-payer which takes the place of almost all health care plans, and I object to that as well, but not as the above for reasons of fundamental liberty. I do believe there is a liberty component, of course, but my concerns are far more practical. Medicine, unfortunately, is not always an exact science: sometimes you need to shop around to find someone who has the best treatment for you, and that can be, of course, seriously complicated in single-payer, since I don't have the opportunity to go to another payer. There are other similar examples, but the point is that most of these are practical matters for which solutions are possible, but in my opinion solutions are easier to come by in a free market system with true competition (which we do not have right now, so it's a poor basis for comparison).
What I would be most inclined to favor is the other option I mentioned, which is a fallback program for those in true need, with regular means testing and so on, though you are talking about doing away with insurers, so I don't believe this is what you are referring to. And frankly, no, this coverage would not necessarily be the same quality of care I have available to me. But I am not sure why it should be. As I've said before, I don't see "the best health care possible" as a right anyone can claim, because "the best health care possible" necessarily has a huge associated cost. On what basis are we saying that this is a right? I don't see it. People keep saying it, but I have no idea where they got the idea.
Back to your question: the problem is not middlemen. The problem is not insurers. The problem is not profit motivation. The problem is that none of these things are properly mitigated by a true market system. Capitalism is not bad; capitalism unchecked by true competition is bad. We need to remove a lot of the regulation. We need to make it easier to open up new clinics. We need to reform patent law. We need to ENCOURAGE profit by introducing MORE competition, and resulting in LOWER prices.
At the same time -- and this is what really kills me -- we do need tougher enforcement of the regulations we do have. All this talk about insurance companies screwing people... we could fix that problem without doing away with insurers, because they are breaking the law and we could better enforce the law. When Enron screwed us, few people said "we need to get rid of the energy market and bring it all under government control." W
Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense! Riiiiiight. Because might makes right, and you have the "liberty" to entice skilled doctors away from those who need them, simply because you have access to more money. Yes. That is what liberty means: the freedom to do what you want. The doctor wants to go to the highest bidder, that is his right.
Face it, a two-tier system works on paper, but we all know it won't fly in real life. I don't want a two-tier system. I do not want any government-provided health care, at all. It's not necessary and it causes more problems than it solves.
You have the liberty to demand a higher level of health care, but you do not have the liberty to deny others access to something so fundamentally necessary as their well being. If you ask me, between the liberty of life, and the liberty of going to a better doctor, one clearly trumps the other. Live free or die.
Then maybe you'll explain why federalized highway systems are blatantly unconstitutional. Better stay off the interstate, or you're anti-American, right?
If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care? Hm. My Constitution reads, The Congress shall have Power... To establish Post Offices and post roads.
Overall health of a country translates to care the majority receives. Not remotely, no.:-)
First off Canada is easy because it's indiscriminate, so everyone receives the same care. Now the US. Lets say the majority of people (the upper 70%) receive better care than Canada. So if we were to give the lower 30% zero care that might bring the US below Canada if the majority care was marginally above Canada. This would ensure it integrates to something under Canada. However, the upper 30% (you claim) receives better care than the majority, which would raise the overall care a bit. Also the lower %30 don't necessarily get zero care. It would be hard to fudge the statistics to get it work out right, but it's possible. No, it's very easy, though first you need to come up with a "health care quotient." Let's say that 100 is the best care possible, and 0 is merely government-mandated emergency care. Let's say the top 5 percent in America gets an average of 95, and and the bottom 15 percent get an average of 5 (since there are charities and other free clinics available). The other top 25 percent gets 80. And another 15 percent at the bottom gets just minimal insured coverage, say, 25.
So somewhere in there we need to figure out where Canada and the other 40 percent of Americans fit in. If Canada is a 60, that means the 40 percent of Americans could fall anywhere from 60-80 to disprove your claim. If Canada is a 70, then that 40 percent could be 70-100.
It doesn't take much imagination here. Of course, I don't know where the majority sits here, and that's the point: that study doesn't say.
It would be easier to conclude that the majority in the US receive less care than Canada That claim is not backed up by any data I've seen.
You equate choice to better care. Is that really what happens in reality? For some people, sure. Absolutely. I know scores of people who shopped around for different doctors and treatments trying to solve problems, and eventually did. It happens all the time. And even if you don't think it would help you, the point is whether *I* want choice, because what we are talking about here is perceptions and how people will vote.
No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing? If you refuse health care to those who can't afford it for the sake of "freedom" When did I ever say that? (Hint: I didn't.)
you *are* harming people. Well no, that's not true. There is no right to health care, and not providing something to someone that they have no right to is not causing them harm. That's question-begging: you are assuming a claim (health care is a right) that I categorically reject.
Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. The market does in many ways decide whether people can get health care: if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Sure, and people cannot afford it primarily because of government regulation, which has driven up the price.
Does a lower class citizen have the choice to have the best care? Of course not; why should they? I don't have that choice either, and I am certainly well above the lower class.
Sigh. You can claim all you want about how it is more efficient, but you cannot reasonably justify the claim that single-payer health care doesn't take away liberty. I won't bother to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant or dishonest as to make that claim. Do you feel your liberties are being violated because you have a single-payer military or fire department? Do you think that is a rational analogy?
Would you at least, for my benefit and others who do concern ourselves with the constitution, outline why you consider that article one, section eight, first paragraph, would not be considered to authorize federalized health care? The first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 is explaining what is to follow. It is not a grant of authority to do whatever may be done with money, it is explaining that the purpose of the money is to spend on those basic categories, and then it goes on to say specifically what those enumerated powers are.
As James Madison said:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
I also am partial to this particular rant he gave to the legislature:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America...
Of course, much of what Madison talked about has been done today. They do pay for teachers, they do (thanks to Bush's NCLB) take care of education; they do pay for the poor; they do pay for roads other than post-roads; they do pay for and regulate police forces. Some may say that's fine, but James Madison, who WROTE the Tenth Amendment and much of the Constitution, said no, it is very much against the Constitution. I say, as James Madison did, that we have subverted the very foundations of the limited government we established, and I will do whatever is in my power to prevent us from subverting it further.
Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. Also, I didn't mention taxes. Er, I mean, I didn't mention taxes as the way in which freedom is lost. That was a separate item: "no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off..."
First off, it appears from the study in your parent post that it wouldn't be a poor conclusion that health care in canada is better for a majority of the population. I don't see how the study supports that conclusion, so I'd disagree that such a conclusion would not be poor. The study looks at overall health of the nation, not specifically at the large majority who already get good (though expensive) health care.
You claim that upper middle class would be significantly worse off in canada, but don't give references to that claim. I don't need to: I gave an argument. I noted the fact that the upper middle class who right now has more options, would have less options. That may not seem significant to you, but it is to them.
Second, so you say its OK to harm all the people who would benefit from a social health care system in order to retain people's freedom of choice? No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing?
Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. Also, I didn't mention taxes.
Unless your argument is that it is not POSSIBLE to increase the care of others without decreasing the care of a few, then you have no point here. At any given price point, yes, that is the tradeoff. Only if you put more money into the system it is possible of increasing the care of some without decreasing anyone elses care. Well, sorta, but yes, which is why almost all Democrats -- John Edwards, surprisingly, is the most honest one here -- propose doing just that, because they know that decreasing care for people is a non-starter.
However, that said, no, there are other ways to increase care without decreasing it for anyone or increasing money put in, by decreasing costs, which can be done in many different ways.
In the US how does overall care improve? More people have to have more money to afford care. How exactly is that going to happen? And if it does happen, wouldn't prices just go up? It depends. It's actually impossible to predict; however, it is likely that prices would go up, but only because the care is getting better. For constant level of care, no, prices go down, because more and more people are getting it and the costs to provide it come down over time. Just like when flat-planel TVs dropped in price drastically over the past few years. (Assuming, of course, there's some level of patent reform.)
I care about myself.
Why should I care more about the rich elite?
Why should anyone, except of course the rich elite? Shrug. I care about everyone.
If everyone simply thinks about *themself* then the Canadian system would get more votes, because it benefits more people. Well, no. The question is whether it benefits a MAJORITY of people, and I doubt that it would. Most Americans already get good health care, and a government plan probably wouldn't cost any less than what they are paying now, and indeed might cost a lot more.
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Yes, which is why it is a good thing we don't have a democracy, but a republic. Read Federalist 10, if you have the time: we have a republic specifically to prevent the people from trampling on the rights of a minority.
but to most Americans, it is not acceptable to harm the few for the sake of the many, if there are other alternatives. Oh Really?
Why is that? Because we believe in liberty.
That American's have a system that favors the few over the many simply represents a good con job by that few. When did I say the system should favor the few over the many? I said the inverse: that it should not HARM the few for the sake of the many.
I think if 'most american's' were actually properly informed of what their situation is and what it would be under each system, most american's would choose a Canadian style system in their own self-interest. I think you're wrong. Indeed, you look at the polls, and you ask people, "do you want universal health care?" and a majority says yes. But when you actually INFORM them of the consequences, the details, the numbers are reversed.
In a system 200 people eat caviar, 2000 people eat mcdonalds, and 20,000 people don't eat. Of course, that odd analogy is not remotely representative of anything in the U.S. If you mean "caviar" as the best health care possible, and "mcdonalds" as the lowest possible while still having it, and "don't eat" as, of course, no health care... the numbers would actually be about 2,000 eating caviar, 15,000 not eating, and 23,000 eating at McDonald's, and 60,000 eating at the Olive Garden. And what those 60,000 are most afraid of is being forced to eat at McDonald's.
And you propose a system where 22,200 people all have to eat mcdonalds what do think is going happen? I propose no such thing. I propose we help more people who can't eat get to eat at McDonald's, and more people who eat at McDonald's get to eat at Olive Garden, by lowering costs for everyone, and without forcing anyone to get worse care than they get now.
I don't think you should ignore a constitution. But I also don't think that you should discard socialized health care just because a piece of paper written eons ago instructs you to do so. Being unconstitutional is not a reason why you shouldn't have federalized health care: it's a reason why you should give a constitution amendment a thought. I already said that: feel free to try to amend the Constitution.
Now, I'll still be against it, because I've already mentioned some other reasons to be against it, and I have many more. But at least then, if it gets passed via amendment, it won't damage my OTHER rights, so that would be a silver lining.
And... ? How does that mean we are all one population and not distinct ones, for the purpose of government health care? You could say the same thing about the European Union, yet they don't have a single health care plan for the entire union there, either. Actually, it's not that simple; there's an agreement between member states of not just the EU, but the entire EEA that means citizens of one country will get free or reduced cost health care in another. Sure, but that's beside the point, which is that each country has a different program for their own population. That it is extended to offer SOME coverage to other populations only emphasizes my point.
pfff. No. It's eliminating the excess profiteering by middlemen Sigh. You can claim all you want about how it is more efficient, but you cannot reasonably justify the claim that single-payer health care doesn't take away liberty. I won't bother to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant or dishonest as to make that claim.
You sir, are an egoist asshole. Yes, I am an egoist, absolutely. I am not an egotist... at least, not to the same degree.
And I am not an asshole, I am a dick. (cf. Team America)
You derive pleasure form seeing other people suffer and are willing to pay for that privilege. That's not remotely true, and nothing I said could possibly have rationally led you to this conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that 1939 is tied with 1954, so 1939 is "also" in the top 10. I suppose then only five of the 11 top 10 are pre-WWII, if we want to look at it that way. I am not sure it's valid to put 1954 ahead of 1939 just because it has a higher 5-year mean, if that is what you did.
And yes, it doesn't change the pattern, or even any of the theories, but it does change the rhetoric. The "pro-warming" people have been saying for awhile now that because "N of the top M hottest years are in the last O years" or because 1998 was the hottest, that this somehow proves anthropogenic global warming. The data didn't actually support that, of course -- that is, it showed the rankings, but it wasn't significant enough to support such a conclusion -- but they've been saying it anyway. So this takes away one lame but successful rhetorical point so we can have fewer distractions to focus on the actual science.
Although there are practical problems with it too, of course, which is WHY it is illegal. Most importantly, if the federal government controls something, then YOU have less control over it. The more local the decision is made, the more power you have to effect change. The more free you are. Not to mention that you like having your freedoms removed if it is something you want, but against it if it is something you don't want. You trade your freedom like everyone else, yet get into the "what about my freedom" whine when it is something you don't like. That's what I call a hypocrite. Do you have a single example of that? I doubt it. But feel free to back up your claim. Go ahead.
The "freedom" to travel an extra 40 miles to a hospital your insurance company has made a deal with, instead of the one just down the street?
The "freedom" to never start your own business because a pre-existing condition means no individual insurer will accept you? Hm. You obviously don't understand the concept of freedom. In fact -- and this is really not at all debatable -- you always have the freedom to change jobs, to not travel 40 extra miles, and to start your own business.
Also, you do not understand anything I've said, because my argument has never been that the current system is good, so attacking the status quo has no impact on my argument, which is that we can and should reform the system without a government takeover (indeed, that we should have LESS government involvement). The current health care system is anti-freedom
... and anti-free market. Very true, which is why almost all of my ideas for reform are about reducing government regulation and control in order to increase the effect of market forces to reduce costs and improve care (as well as, naturally, availability). Being required to have sufficient insurance limits mobility, a core value of a free market. Most states in this country do not require you to have health insurance, and I absolutely oppose all such requirements. I don't understand people that aren't interested in making sure that everybody has the freedom to choose any job or health care they want without having to worry about the costs of their care. I don't understand people who think our decisions should be divorced from the costs of those decisions.
....like we have universal access to the roads we should have the same access to the Net and Basic health care. Also, universal access to GameBoys. Its [sic] a cost socity [sic] should share and distribute equally. No, it shouldn't. Just like education, and 1000x other things the government does for the general welfare. Most of which are blatantly unconstitutional, because "general welfare," as James Madison made clear, was not a blank check for the federal government to ignore the fact that it is a limited government of enumerated powers; it was merely a brief summary of powers to be listed later in Article I, Section 8, which includes the post-roads and patent office, but not fire or police.That's a straw man logical fallacy. I am in this middle that is being more and more screwed right now in ways you cannot even imagen and being pushed to the bottom. I make $46k a year. I am $3000 away from being able to be on Medicade for my wife, my company offers no insurance and I have two children with another baby on the way. Maybe I fucked up and my wife did by having another kid. You know what? Its not the fucking poor kids fault that now her normal doctor which takes medicade wont even see us without an extra $1250 out of pocket up front. Guess what? I don't just have 1250 laying around. I tried to work out a payment plan. $700 up front. No. $800. No. $900. No Before we got married she could just walk right in and get first class service. Now we get married as (as some on the right would say is the only proper way to raise a family) and she can't even get an OB exam. You know what happens when my family of four gets sick out of the blue in the winter? We get fucked! It happend last year. Being set back $800 in medical costs in one month blows dude. Yawn. This, of course, is also a straw man, because you are attacking the status quo as an argument to me, but I am not defending the status quo. So this argument you are constructing has nothing to do with my argument. This is just fucked. There is no other way to look at it. So? Why do you (apparently) think the only way to deal with the problem is government-run health care? It's obviously not true. Why does every man woman and child not have basic dental? Shrug. Why should they? I've never seen a rational argument for it, other than "I just think they should." Fine, and I think everyone man woman and child should have a GameBoy. I'd pay more in taxes for that. Good for you. What about eye glasses and contacts? What about them? Why don't we give LASIK to every poor underclass person that cannot afford it? Feel free to do that yourself. We as a socity could and we could share the costs. Feel free to give to charities that would do this, then. We already do it for the GODDAMN ROADS, WE ALREADY FUCKING DO IT FOR DEFENCE. IT ALREADY DO IT FOR POLICE. These are basic fucking services and we all sholder the costs. That's because it's the only reasonable way for those things. Quite obviously, there are many other ways to handle medical care. The middle and rich shoulder more, AS THEY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE TO LOSE! No, what you mean is, "they should pay more because they are a minority and we have the power to take it from them." Pretty tyrannical and authoritarian of you, dontcha think? Just think about it. Then do something to change it. I do. I work with elected officials to actually reduce costs for families. What do YOU do? Don't play devils advocate, you cannot win here. Perhaps that's true, but only because you're not making an actual argument, so there's nothing to defeat.
I am all for getting rid of federal income tax, but no way should the feds collect property tax. If we're going to talk about the unlikely anyway, let's just say that we can force the federal government to cut spending, and then we can cut the income tax without replacing it with anything. But if we must replace it, it should be with a sales tax.
What about states providing healthcare, for instance by collecting a tax similar in intent to worker's compensation, such that people's healthcare is paid for? This, then, would be a power devolved upon a state, pretty much as per the constitution. In this way, the middleman (insurers) is done away with, as well as a good deal of the official paths for profit motive from people's misfortune.
Do you object to that kind of plan?
Yes, but for different reasons. And it depends on whether this plan would be a fallback, or whether it would replace private insurance. And it depends on whether privately funded health care would still be legal.
... we could fix that problem without doing away with insurers, because they are breaking the law and we could better enforce the law. When Enron screwed us, few people said "we need to get rid of the energy market and bring it all under government control." W
There's just so many details and I have various problems with them, in different ways. For example, the Massachusetts health care plan makes it required for every resident in the state to have health insurance. I see that as absolutely unconstitutional: it's a tax on being alive. If I want to not have insurance, that is my right as a human being.
Then there's Quebec's law (which was overturned in 2005, I believe) which went the other way, and made it illegal to privately fund medically necessary health services, on the grounds that the government, and no one else, should do it. I see that as a fundamental violation of human rights, too: as long as the product or service itself is not illegal (and certainly, the health care is not illegal, only the method of payment), then I should be able to acquire it, should I have the means.
And then there's normal single-payer which takes the place of almost all health care plans, and I object to that as well, but not as the above for reasons of fundamental liberty. I do believe there is a liberty component, of course, but my concerns are far more practical. Medicine, unfortunately, is not always an exact science: sometimes you need to shop around to find someone who has the best treatment for you, and that can be, of course, seriously complicated in single-payer, since I don't have the opportunity to go to another payer. There are other similar examples, but the point is that most of these are practical matters for which solutions are possible, but in my opinion solutions are easier to come by in a free market system with true competition (which we do not have right now, so it's a poor basis for comparison).
What I would be most inclined to favor is the other option I mentioned, which is a fallback program for those in true need, with regular means testing and so on, though you are talking about doing away with insurers, so I don't believe this is what you are referring to. And frankly, no, this coverage would not necessarily be the same quality of care I have available to me. But I am not sure why it should be. As I've said before, I don't see "the best health care possible" as a right anyone can claim, because "the best health care possible" necessarily has a huge associated cost. On what basis are we saying that this is a right? I don't see it. People keep saying it, but I have no idea where they got the idea.
Back to your question: the problem is not middlemen. The problem is not insurers. The problem is not profit motivation. The problem is that none of these things are properly mitigated by a true market system. Capitalism is not bad; capitalism unchecked by true competition is bad. We need to remove a lot of the regulation. We need to make it easier to open up new clinics. We need to reform patent law. We need to ENCOURAGE profit by introducing MORE competition, and resulting in LOWER prices.
At the same time -- and this is what really kills me -- we do need tougher enforcement of the regulations we do have. All this talk about insurance companies screwing people
If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care? Hm. My Constitution reads, The Congress shall have Power
So somewhere in there we need to figure out where Canada and the other 40 percent of Americans fit in. If Canada is a 60, that means the 40 percent of Americans could fall anywhere from 60-80 to disprove your claim. If Canada is a 70, then that 40 percent could be 70-100.
It doesn't take much imagination here. Of course, I don't know where the majority sits here, and that's the point: that study doesn't say. It would be easier to conclude that the majority in the US receive less care than Canada That claim is not backed up by any data I've seen. You equate choice to better care. Is that really what happens in reality? For some people, sure. Absolutely. I know scores of people who shopped around for different doctors and treatments trying to solve problems, and eventually did. It happens all the time. And even if you don't think it would help you, the point is whether *I* want choice, because what we are talking about here is perceptions and how people will vote. No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing? If you refuse health care to those who can't afford it for the sake of "freedom" When did I ever say that? (Hint: I didn't.) you *are* harming people. Well no, that's not true. There is no right to health care, and not providing something to someone that they have no right to is not causing them harm. That's question-begging: you are assuming a claim (health care is a right) that I categorically reject. Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation. The market does in many ways decide whether people can get health care: if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Sure, and people cannot afford it primarily because of government regulation, which has driven up the price. Does a lower class citizen have the choice to have the best care? Of course not; why should they? I don't have that choice either, and I am certainly well above the lower class.
As James Madison said:
I also am partial to this particular rant he gave to the legislature:
Of course, much of what Madison talked about has been done today. They do pay for teachers, they do (thanks to Bush's NCLB) take care of education; they do pay for the poor; they do pay for roads other than post-roads; they do pay for and regulate police forces. Some may say that's fine, but James Madison, who WROTE the Tenth Amendment and much of the Constitution, said no, it is very much against the Constitution. I say, as James Madison did, that we have subverted the very foundations of the limited government we established, and I will do whatever is in my power to prevent us from subverting it further.
However, that said, no, there are other ways to increase care without decreasing it for anyone or increasing money put in, by decreasing costs, which can be done in many different ways. In the US how does overall care improve? More people have to have more money to afford care. How exactly is that going to happen? And if it does happen, wouldn't prices just go up? It depends. It's actually impossible to predict; however, it is likely that prices would go up, but only because the care is getting better. For constant level of care, no, prices go down, because more and more people are getting it and the costs to provide it come down over time. Just like when flat-planel TVs dropped in price drastically over the past few years. (Assuming, of course, there's some level of patent reform.) I care about myself.
Why should I care more about the rich elite?
Why should anyone, except of course the rich elite? Shrug. I care about everyone. If everyone simply thinks about *themself* then the Canadian system would get more votes, because it benefits more people. Well, no. The question is whether it benefits a MAJORITY of people, and I doubt that it would. Most Americans already get good health care, and a government plan probably wouldn't cost any less than what they are paying now, and indeed might cost a lot more. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Yes, which is why it is a good thing we don't have a democracy, but a republic. Read Federalist 10, if you have the time: we have a republic specifically to prevent the people from trampling on the rights of a minority. but to most Americans, it is not acceptable to harm the few for the sake of the many, if there are other alternatives. Oh Really?
Why is that? Because we believe in liberty. That American's have a system that favors the few over the many simply represents a good con job by that few. When did I say the system should favor the few over the many? I said the inverse: that it should not HARM the few for the sake of the many. I think if 'most american's' were actually properly informed of what their situation is and what it would be under each system, most american's would choose a Canadian style system in their own self-interest. I think you're wrong. Indeed, you look at the polls, and you ask people, "do you want universal health care?" and a majority says yes. But when you actually INFORM them of the consequences, the details, the numbers are reversed. In a system 200 people eat caviar, 2000 people eat mcdonalds, and 20,000 people don't eat. Of course, that odd analogy is not remotely representative of anything in the U.S. If you mean "caviar" as the best health care possible, and "mcdonalds" as the lowest possible while still having it, and "don't eat" as, of course, no health care
Now, I'll still be against it, because I've already mentioned some other reasons to be against it, and I have many more. But at least then, if it gets passed via amendment, it won't damage my OTHER rights, so that would be a silver lining.
And I am not an asshole, I am a dick. (cf. Team America) You derive pleasure form seeing other people suffer and are willing to pay for that privilege. That's not remotely true, and nothing I said could possibly have rationally led you to this conclusion.