yeah...who needs to crunch the numbers. just make it free. I wish it was that easy but no matter how much morality is talked about, we have to deal with reality. And reality is it has to be paid for and should be paid for in an efficient manner
instead of basing healthcare on wealth he wants it to be based on intelligence. i dont think people read much what you wrote after 'burger glipper'. You've effectively been given the moral stiffarm
You are wrong, it will not detract from the health care for the middle class. If this were true, I could understand your concern.
Max, I just responded to your post since it was substantive, not that I felt we were particularly arguing on the health care issue. FWIW I deal with a skewed sample at work as I talk mostly to people withour insurance, though the majority do have some sort of insurance. Certainly I would say 90 percent plus of my friends do.
I am just going off of what I see in europe and the UK. Their health care for my coworkers in Scotland is terrible compared to mine. We both hold similar positions. Middle class will have the same level of care as poor yes? If not completely the same it will be based on the federal system in the same way the NHS works. My friend just had a baby and had to go to prvt health care because when his wife was first found to be preggers she was told there was a 1 month wait to see a OBGYN. She had the baby in the NHS hospital but all preggers care was prvt. This was extremely expensive.
True but does that mean you should not try? I thought Man was suppose to be above nature in some's view Rocket River
ive actually thought at times that he is new yorker. very similar posting styles donkey magic is to new yorker as trader jorge is to big texx. see above
You know. . . I am waiting on someone here to suggest we make the poor people in to Soilent Green or something Poverty is an unforgivable sin in this land Punishable by nothing but Scorn and loathing Being Poor . . .whether born there or through circumstances is unforgivable. . . We are a society ruled by wealth and only the rich and well off have the RIGHT to anything good or basic If you cannot Afford it . . . no matter what . . you should just die seems to be the ideology around here with some folx. I wonder what some of those who hold that ideals would do if they were poor Rocket River
totally agree. very hard to make a limited resource "free" or a "universal right". I think some of the morality-based arguments tends to overlook this. Tax-payer funded health care is not a universal right - but rather a public service that a nation with the resources may provide at tax-payer expense. I know virtually nothing about this subject but the crux of the matter seems to be cost moreso than an argument of universal rights or morality. If the costs can be lowered, it would be more accessible and the debate over "socialization" would probably go away. What drives our health care costs up so much? Maybe some doctor can answer this. Even if we provided "free" care for all the poor, the wealthy will still be able to seek out better, high-cost, private care right? Would that spawn another debate of haves and have-nots? Would the pro-universal health proponents be satisfied with such inequalities? Do legislators in Europe argue for abolishing all private care to eliminate such inequalities?
Poverty does suck. But I don't think a total redistribution of wealth would be something to aspire for. There are a lot of poor people who are responsible for their situations. Then again, people born poor do have more obstacles to overcome to escape their plight. Maybe some sort of income-based affirmative action paradigm can work. At some point, merit and achievement have to be rewarded. Truth be told, the poor people in this country do not have it that bad. I used to be one of those poor people living in South Central and life wasn't that bad. We all had access to plumbing, electricity, ate meat everyday, etc. Just about everyone in the area had cellphones, internet accesss, cable tv, etc. Then again - I'm sure there are people a lot worse off than I was.
It should have everything to do with it, but it doesn't. You're in favor of a system that benefits those with the luck of being born to the right family (seriously, can we get rid of this whole "American Dream" bull**** already? It's been dragging on for over a century, and now it's more illusory than ever). Smart people rarely choose to spend all their time amassing as much capital as possible - and, as such, aren't always privy to the same access to necessities as wealthier, but far more mediocre people. We need mediocre people to keep the system running - they're the ones who lack the imagination and the intelligence to do anything but the day-to-day bureaucratic duties, and they're useful in maintaining enough of a status quo that intelligent, imaginative people can have space to let their ideas develop. Unfortunately, the mediocre have now so completely overrun everything that they think, due to the capital they've amassed, that their accumulation of capital, that signpost to where they "got in life," is a sign of their inherent superiority in comparison to, say, "burger flippers." Because the mediocre have so completely overrun everything (we have a billion businessmen for every one genius it seems), the "naturalness" of the environment has gradually skewed to favor those who cluster in the middle of the scale. The problem, of course, is that all the great advancements in civilization result from people, lone individuals usually, who are far more intelligent and creative than the masses. They are few and far between, and many who are born with the abilities to really change societies are likely being washed down the drain simply because they were born poor, or because the idea of using their significant natural abilities to follow the banal pursuit of wealth is abhorrent to them. So, you're in favor of a system that benefits those who got somewhere in life, those who have amassed enough capital that healthcare isn't a huge concern for them. The presumption here, and everywhere unfortunately (because it's wrong), is that where "someone gets in life" has more to do with hard work and intelligence than it does with where, and to whom, one was born. You're essentially in favor of a "survival of the fittest" manner of administering healthcare, and so am I. The mistake you've made is in your determination of who is the most fit. I've shown, I think, that wealth accumulation is more a function of mediocrity and conformity than it is of intelligence (and maybe you agree - seriously, what does intelligence have to do with where someone gets in life?). So, if we're going to do this "survival of the fittest" thing, we need to make sure our system actually favors those who, in natural terms, are most fit - instead of the artificial terms created by a glut of mediocre people. We need our intelligent people, and we need to construct the system in such a way that they thrive. We need mediocre people too, but there are millions and billions of them and any one of them can easily be replaced. Like you for example - I'm sure anyone could do your job. Are you worth more to society than, for example, a child born a few weeks ago who is naturally extremely intelligent, but whose birth in a poor family may keep him from receiving adequate healthcare as a child? A child whose intelligence could potentially lead him to cure AIDS, or develop a new kind of spaceship, or create an unlimited water supply? Shouldn't the system be set up to make sure that this type of child not only has every advantage, but has MORE advantages then the billions of branch managers and computer accountants? So yeah, let's do the natural selection thing. But let's do it right, for the benefit of the world. Surely you'd be willing to forego the best medical care, or any medical care, if it meant a doctor was going to spend more time curing the more intelligent.
Sorry. My point was, I know alot of people that were much smarter than me throw their lives down the toilet.
When I was insured, I took visits that didn't solve things with my eye problem, paid the $10 copay, and that was it. One time went to a clinic that wasn't covered by my insurance. I waited 45 minutes at the lobby, another 30 in the doctor's room, only to have the douchebag doctor do a superficial 10 minute exam and tell me that I was fine. I wasn't, but I end up getting charged 350 for that visit months later. Some of these guys go through the motions, and even if you build a relationship with them, everyone realizes that unnecessary checkups are a part of the system. It's great to pay 10 bucks just to have that feeling that you made sure, but the external costs are easier to ignore if you're covered. I don't see how there would be more waste by ditching the "privatized" system we have now.
