Universal health care

[editec]

Let me see if I understand what you are advocating here edit, that ALL Healthcare including , Doctor's, Hospitals, Research, etc all come under the employ of the government?

If we truly want the lowest cost universal health care system, NAV, I see no other path to provide that.

Every other semi-socialist system is bound to fail because it becomes the enabler which feeds a capitalist market which plays by the rule:

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR​

There's no free lunch, no matter what we choose to do.​

We have only hard choices to make.​

We can do nothing, and the rising cost of health care will eventually mean only the richest of the rich (and their servants of course) will have health care in this nation.​

We can initiate some semi-socialist system like single player universal health care, and the market will eat up every additional cent that we put into that system without substantially improving health care outcomes in the medium run.​

Or we can socialize the whole damned system, and likely the quality of care will go down somewhat ESPECIALLY for those of 10% us who have great private health care plans now.​

In the socialized system, the people who are REALLY paying the price of it, are the HC providers who won't make huge amounts of money like they do now.​

So they are truly the losers of that system. The HC community in all its aspects loses because the profit is taken out of it and they are employees of the state.​

I expect a whole lot of highly skilled MDs would leave if we socialized medicine. Goodbye!​

OTOH, included in a fully socialized system should be FREE EDUCATION FOR people going into the health care fields to offset their losses.​

That would undoubtably offset the losses we'd experience as MDs (used to making ten or twenty times what the average family made) jumped ship or retired to play golf and condemn socialism with the boys in the club.​

HC providers have enjoyed a wonderful monopoly on providing HC which in the last fifty years, and coupled with third party health insurance this situation has made them very very rich indeed compared to most of us.​

But this happy state of affairs for them cannot go on forever.​

Incidently, I am not advocating this fully socialized system.

I'm just telling you that if you want to have universal health care... it's the ONLY solution that won't entirely bankrupt society.​

The rules of supply and demand for HC are NOT like for any other good or service.​

There is practically NO elasticity in prices, and ironically, in a capitalist system, the more doctors there are, the higher the cost to the society, without any that society enjoying any real appreciable improvement in morbitity or mortality statistics.​

Odd isn't it?​

But think about it...health care is the only thing we buy, that if we don't buy it when we need it, we lose everything. That makes for very motivated buyers indeed.​

The consumer can't substitute something else for it, and while there is some difference in MD costs, who takes time to shop around when their health is on the line?​

Certainly nobody who is having their HC paid by a third party like it is NOW in both public and private insurance schemes is doing any comparison shopping.​

Baically, what I'm telling you is that the normal rules of supply and demand do not work in HEALTH CARE...not at least if you want you entire population to have access to health care.​

phew!​

Sorry to be so wordy, but there no simply way to explain all that, NAV​

 

[Navy1960]

The Iraq war is plain and simple, a corporate war, as is what we're doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan .. AND BILLIONS of dollars came up simply LOST, MISSING, Ooopps, it's gone. An intelligent society manages its resources in ways that benefit its citizens, not corporations .. ask Thomas Jefferson.

Here are the facts my brother ...

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship.. so to suggest that it does not work does not represnt the facts .. not saying you suggested it won't work.

The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations

The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Private for profit corporations are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration

The point is that our current system does not work efficiently or effectively and does not cover millions of Americans and GROWING .. RAPIDLY GROWING.

At some point an intelligent society must stop clinging to platitudes of the past and correct that which does not benefit the whole.

The failures of the US healthcare system has absolutely nothing to do with individuals pulling themselves up by the bootstraps or siiting on their asses.

Universal healthcare is coming .. it's widely supported by a majority of Americans .. including by many republicans .. and as resources continue to shrink, expect more changes in the way we view our common issues and needs.

If I'm misinterpreting you I apologize

Well you can count me out of a govt. mandated Universal Health Care system and in fact, let me tell you what I do plan on doing. If it does come down where the Feds. mandate Universal Health Care coverage it is my intention to find a good constitutional attorney and see to it this is fought on constitutional grounds. My opinion is quite simple, The United States has a system to provide Health Insurance for people and the cost of that insurance has gotten to the point where many cannot afford it. So who's job is it to regulate the companies that are in the insurance business and therefor regulate costs? That would be the very people we elect to office. I repeat, there is NOTHING in the contitution that provides a "right" to healthcare and if you as an indivudual wish it to be a right as do many others then I suggest you go about it in the manner it needs to be gone about and thats to have a constitutional amendment that provides that "healthcare" is a right and therefor congress will have the authority to provide it for you. The goal to provide healthcare is a noble one but at what point does someone in this country begin to take responibility for themselves? I did read your statistics and did you know what country spends the most money on healthcare per person in the world?

#1 United States: 4,271
#2 Switzerland: 3,857
#3 Norway: 3,182
#4 Denmark: 2,785
#5 Luxembourg: 2,731
#6 Iceland: 2,701
#7 Germany: 2,697


So given the fact we already are #1 in that area what makes you think that by spending even more money we are going to effect the other numbers simply by saying, NOW everyone is covered without changing peoples lifestyles? Why do you suppose our heart disease rates are high? It would not have something to do with the American diet would it? Does that mean the govt. is now going to start telling people you can eat this and you can't eat that? At some point in this country people in this country are going to have to be responsible for themselves and stop looking for the government to "bail" them out each and everytime they make bad choices in life. This may sounds harsh, but actually, I am a big advocate of driving down the costs of health insurance and there are ways to do it to make it affordable for a vast majority of Americans.

 

[Navy1960]

If we truly want the lowest cost universal health care system, NAV, I see no other path to provide that.

Every other semi-socialist system is bound to fail because it becomes the enabler which feeds a capitalist market which plays by the rule:

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR​

There's no free lunch, no matter what we choose to do.​

We have only hard choices to make.​

We can do nothing, and the rising cost of health care will eventually mean only the richest of the rich (and their servants of course) will have health care in this nation.​

We can initiate some semi-socialist system like single player universal health care, and the market will eat up every additional cent that we put into that system without substantially improving health care outcomes in the medium run.​

Or we can socialize the whole damned system, and likely the quality of care will go down somewhat ESPECIALLY for those of 10% us who have great private health care plans now.​

In the socialized system, the people who are REALLY paying the price of it, are the HC providers who won't make huge amounts of money like they do now.​

So they are truly the losers of that system. The HC community in all its aspects loses because the profit is taken out of it and they are employees of the state.​

I expect a whole lot of highly skilled MDs would leave if we socialized medicine. Goodbye!​

OTOH, included in a fully socialized system should be FREE EDUCATION FOR people going into the health care fields to offset their losses.​

That would undoubtably offset the losses we'd experience as MDs (used to making ten or twenty times what the average family made) jumped ship or retired to play golf and condemn socialism with the boys in the club.​

HC providers have enjoyed a wonderful monopoly on providing HC which in the last fifty years, and coupled with third party health insurance this situation has made them very very rich indeed compared to most of us.​

But this happy state of affairs for them cannot go on forever.​

Incidently, I am not advocating this fully socialized system.

I'm just telling you that if you want to have universal health care... it's the ONLY solution that won't entirely bankrupt society.​

The rules of supply and demand for HC are NOT like for any other good or service.​

There is practically NO elasticity in prices, and ironically, in a capitalist system, the more doctors there are, the higher the cost to the society, without any that society enjoying any real appreciable improvement in morbitity or mortality statistics.​

Odd isn't it?​

But think about it...health care is the only thing we buy, that if we don't buy it when we need it, we lose everything. That makes for very motivated buyers indeed.​

The consumer can't substitute something else for it, and while there is some difference in MD costs, who takes time to shop around when their health is on the line?​

Certainly nobody who is having their HC paid by a third party like it is NOW in both public and private insurance schemes is doing any comparison shopping.​

Baically, what I'm telling you is that the normal rules of supply and demand do not work in HEALTH CARE...not at least if you want you entire population to have access to health care.​

phew!​

Sorry to be so wordy, but there no simply way to explain all that, NAV​

I tend to believe that the Health Care industry has bought and sold congress many years ago edit. IMHO healthcare unless given authority under the constitution is not a "right" . We do however, have the means to correct this as citizens if we all agree that it is a noble goal to provide access to inexpensive and affordable as well as quality healthcare. If we can all agree to that , then the next step at least in my mind is quite simple, it is to call upon the very people we elect to regulate the very industries they have charge over to see to it they provide it. I have to humbly disagree with you on this one edit as what you are calling for is a fundimental change in this countries foundational beliefs, not that those have not already been shot to hell. However, is someone does not take a stand somewhere, the United States thats will cease to exist as the nation it was established as and we may as well go ahead and get it over with and change the name to the Communist States of America, becuase what you propose is well beyond what I would call even socialist. Don't misunderstand me, I want as many people to have access to affordable healthcare as can access it, but just happen to feel that we can accomplish that within the system of government we have and not one of some other nation.

 

[Bern80]

If we truly want the lowest cost universal health care system, NAV, I see no other path to provide that.

Every other semi-socialist system is bound to fail because it becomes the enabler which feeds a capitalist market which plays by the rule:

WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR​

There's no free lunch, no matter what we choose to do.​

We have only hard choices to make.​

We can do nothing, and the rising cost of health care will eventually mean only the richest of the rich (and their servants of course) will have health care in this nation.​

We can initiate some semi-socialist system like single player universal health care, and the market will eat up every additional cent that we put into that system without substantially improving health care outcomes in the medium run.​

Or we can socialize the whole damned system, and likely the quality of care will go down somewhat ESPECIALLY for those of 10% us who have great private health care plans now.​

In the socialized system, the people who are REALLY paying the price of it, are the HC providers who won't make huge amounts of money like they do now.​

So they are truly the losers of that system. The HC community in all its aspects loses because the profit is taken out of it and they are employees of the state.​

I expect a whole lot of highly skilled MDs would leave if we socialized medicine. Goodbye!​

OTOH, included in a fully socialized system should be FREE EDUCATION FOR people going into the health care fields to offset their losses.​

That would undoubtably offset the losses we'd experience as MDs (used to making ten or twenty times what the average family made) jumped ship or retired to play golf and condemn socialism with the boys in the club.​

HC providers have enjoyed a wonderful monopoly on providing HC which in the last fifty years, and coupled with third party health insurance this situation has made them very very rich indeed compared to most of us.​

But this happy state of affairs for them cannot go on forever.​

Incidently, I am not advocating this fully socialized system.

I'm just telling you that if you want to have universal health care... it's the ONLY solution that won't entirely bankrupt society.​

The rules of supply and demand for HC are NOT like for any other good or service.​

There is practically NO elasticity in prices, and ironically, in a capitalist system, the more doctors there are, the higher the cost to the society, without any that society enjoying any real appreciable improvement in morbitity or mortality statistics.​

Odd isn't it?​

But think about it...health care is the only thing we buy, that if we don't buy it when we need it, we lose everything. That makes for very motivated buyers indeed.​

The consumer can't substitute something else for it, and while there is some difference in MD costs, who takes time to shop around when their health is on the line?​

Certainly nobody who is having their HC paid by a third party like it is NOW in both public and private insurance schemes is doing any comparison shopping.​

Baically, what I'm telling you is that the normal rules of supply and demand do not work in HEALTH CARE...not at least if you want you entire population to have access to health care.​

phew!​

Sorry to be so wordy, but there no simply way to explain all that, NAV​

Couple problems with this.

One you admit that quality of care will most likely go down. Except it won't be for just 10%. The majority of Americans receieve excellent health care through their employers. I know I do, and I am by no stretch independently wealthy or even close to it. I would be poor in fact by Obama's standards. You grossly understate the number of peope whos' quality of care would be lessened.

We've had this debate on numerous occasions. People say are system is poor because it's expensive, but that is just one component. We really do have the best actual health care in the world, and what a bazzar concept that we pay more for said quality. There is the other side of the coin which is inexpensive care and no one can deny that countries like England and Canada, while haveing positives have also had negatives in terms of long waits and quality of care in general.

HSA's are great as well. I put $1000 a year in to mine and it's pre-tax which saves you money right there. And they have made them considerably more convenient. Out company actually uses a Visa debit card tied to our HSA for use on pretty much any medical expense that I might be responsible for out of pocket, co-pays, prescriptions, deductibles, etc.

In a nutshell the arguments on each side are equally valid:

What good is cheap healthcare if it is poor quality of care?

What good is top notch quality of care if no one can afford it?

No one is going to like this solution but I say deregulate the insureance industry. Make it easier for there to be competition in the market place so that companies can be competitive on the cost of premiums. A lot of insurance company expense is government red tape.

The other argument that I always talk about is more idealogical. In general I don't find solutions that are dissinsetives to good behavior, or at the least not incentives for good behavior, to be very good solutions. How that applies to healthcare is that if you are respsonible for your premiums they will be bigger or smaller depending on your habits (i.e. smoking, drinking, obese lifestyle, etc.). Haveing a chunk of money taken from you to cover government funded healthcare isn't an incentive to change those behaviors, unless you see a system that somehow factors in people's health risks in how mich they are taxed.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Iraq war is plain and simple, a corporate war, as is what we're doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan .. AND BILLIONS of dollars came up simply LOST, MISSING, Ooopps, it's gone. An intelligent society manages its resources in ways that benefit its citizens, not corporations .. ask Thomas Jefferson.

Here are the facts my brother ...

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship.. so to suggest that it does not work does not represnt the facts .. not saying you suggested it won't work.

The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations

The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Private for profit corporations are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration

The point is that our current system does not work efficiently or effectively and does not cover millions of Americans and GROWING .. RAPIDLY GROWING.

At some point an intelligent society must stop clinging to platitudes of the past and correct that which does not benefit the whole.

The failures of the US healthcare system has absolutely nothing to do with individuals pulling themselves up by the bootstraps or siiting on their asses.

Universal healthcare is coming .. it's widely supported by a majority of Americans .. including by many republicans .. and as resources continue to shrink, expect more changes in the way we view our common issues and needs.

If I'm misinterpreting you I apologize

Ahhhh... another WHO selective statistic citation... why not look at the whole group of statistics involving quality of services offered... quality of physicians... amount of services offered.. etc...

Again... you are not owed anything for your personal well being by anyone except you

And someone else thinks the government, with all it's bureaucracy, red tape, etc is going to have LOWER administrative costs... oh GOD, my sides are splitting from the laughter

 

[BlackAsCoal]

It is slighlty disingenuous to imply that an intelligent society is one that simply provides things to people w/o expectation.

What is expected is a better society .. that's it.

There is no questions of profit nor any other expectation than you are a member of that society. Society is not about individuals.

The good thing about many of the tenets of socialism is that they do not have to be forced upon society, society evolves to thost tenets.

Universal healthcare is coming, because American SOCIETY will demand it.

 

[DiamondDave]

What is expected is a better society .. that's it.

There is no questions of profit nor any other expectation than you are a member of that society. Society is not about individuals.

The good thing about many of the tenets of socialism is that they do not have to be forced upon society, society evolves to thost tenets.

Universal healthcare is coming, because American SOCIETY will demand it.

Society is about the collection of individuals with their individual rights and responsibilities... it is not about a socialist collective or fucking hive.... those rights and responsibilities of the individuals within the society are the result of the freedom given by the country/society/government... that freedom is sacred

There is no good thing about the tenets of socialism... there is good about the basis of freedom

SOCIETY and popular whim could scream and call for mandatory sex and XBox 360's in every house... that is not just to happen because of that popular whim... this is not a "if it feels good, do it at the expense of someone else" society.... it is a society based on rights and the freedom that if you want something you have the liberty to earn it and get it for yourself

 

[BlackAsCoal]

An intelligent society has people who voluntarily helps others... not a forced mandate of taking over the personal responsibilities of others..

So you believe socialist societies, and/or any society that has universal healthcare do not ALSO have people who voluntarily help each other?

In a free society, it is not the job of government to be a mommy, doctor, nurse, loan officer, allowance giver or whatever...

Your analogies are strickly meant for children, not intelligent conversation.

The job of government is to do what is the best interests of its citizens and its society. Civil rights is but one of a thousand examples where government stepped in to do what is best for its SOCIETY ... Feel free to call it being "mommy."

NOW... that being said... society can be charged to take care of it's elements that truly CANNOT take care of themselves by any means... the thing is this is not the case with the vast majority of people wanting entitlements, receiving handouts, or whatever...

With the element of freedom, you have inherent positives AND NEGATIVES... it is all part of that freedom and liberty.... but little socialists who love control, are generous with people's money other than their own, do not really care about freedom....

Social security checks are being cashed by really rich people who don't need them .. does that mean social security shouldn't exist?

I do not share your idea of what you call "freedom" .. by any stretch of the imagination .. and apparently you have no concept of who is in control and who is generous with other people's money. It sure as fuck ain't socialists.

A bit more critical thinking would lead you to what is staring you right in the face as they just stole about a trillion dollars of "other people's money" .. and they didn't give it to minorities, socialists, illegal aliens, or any of the other groups of people you like to blame .. proving that your entire government, including the people you vote, for have the freedom to rape the US Treasury AND you don't have the "freedom" to do a goddamn thing about it ..

Freedom is having the ability to evolve

 

[DiamondDave]

So you believe socialist societies, and/or any society that has universal healthcare do not ALSO have people who voluntarily help each other?



Your analogies are strickly meant for children, not intelligent conversation.

The job of government is to do what is the best interests of its citizens and its society. Civil rights is but one of a thousand examples where government stepped in to do what is best for its SOCIETY ... Feel free to call it being "mommy."



Social security checks are being cashed by really rich people who don't need them .. does that mean social security shouldn't exist?

I do not share your idea of what you call "freedom" .. by any stretch of the imagination .. and apparently you have no concept of who is in control and who is generous with other people's money. It sure as fuck ain't socialists.

A bit more critical thinking would lead you to what is staring you right in the face as they just stole about a trillion dollars of "other people's money" .. and they didn't give it to minorities, socialists, illegal aliens, or any of the other groups of people you like to blame .. proving that your entire government, including the people you vote, for have the freedom to rape the US Treasury AND you don't have the "freedom" to do a goddamn thing about it ..

Freedom is having the ability to evolve

You believe in the childish concept of socialism being a viable system of government, and you should be spoken to as a child...

And funny... freedom is not about having the ability to evolve... freedom IS what it is... not something you attempt to redefine to push a socialist agenda

freedom - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You speak about having no idea who is control... yet you advocate a system that is WHOLE BASED on control and the restriction of freedom....

 

[Bern80]

What is expected is a better society .. that's it.

Agreed

There is no questions of profit nor any other expectation than you are a member of that society. Society is not about individuals.

It is and it isn't. The benefit of the entire society is dependent on the behavior of individuals. Behavior is learned over time. In socialism people learn that their level of input will not change what they get out of the society in payments. So they learn not to work as hard because there it isn't any benefit to doing so. A good society is one where it's indivudauls realize they need to be productive in order to not be a burden to the rest of society if able. Socialism runs counter to that. It teaches that regardless of your efforts you will be taken care of.

The good thing about many of the tenets of socialism is that they do not have to be forced upon society, society evolves to thost tenets.

Universal healthcare is coming, because American SOCIETY will demand it.

Unless the American Dream is dead (being able to achieve as much as you want), I don't think so.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Society is about the collection of individuals with their individual rights and responsibilities... it is not about a socialist collective or fucking hive.... those rights and responsibilities of the individuals within the society are the result of the freedom given by the country/society/government... that freedom is sacred

There is no good thing about the tenets of socialism... there is good about the basis of freedom

SOCIETY and popular whim could scream and call for mandatory sex and XBox 360's in every house... that is not just to happen because of that popular whim... this is not a "if it feels good, do it at the expense of someone else" society.... it is a society based on rights and the freedom that if you want something you have the liberty to earn it and get it for yourself

Indivduals fit into SOCIETY, society does not bend to individual whims .. and that's true of any society one belongs to.

You keep talking about freedom as if you own it.

Is England a free society?

How about Canada, Sweden?

How about America .. because after all we have elements of socialism in our society?

What evolution is proving true is that like mixed economies of free market and government control, mixed philosopical ideologies of democracy and socialism work best for society.

It's important to note that you had to use the extreme example of madatory sex and Xbox's to make a false point. A society of Beavis and Buttheads would indeed expect such goofiness .. but an intelligent society would not, and an intelligent society would indeed demand universal healthcare when the evidence is clear that privtization of American health is not working.

This is not an argument I even need to have because it doesn't make one damn bit of difference that you can't see what's coming, or can't see it neccessity.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You believe in the childish concept of socialism being a viable system of government, and you should be spoken to as a child...

And funny... freedom is not about having the ability to evolve... freedom IS what it is... not something you attempt to redefine to push a socialist agenda

freedom - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You speak about having no idea who is control... yet you advocate a system that is WHOLE BASED on control and the restriction of freedom....

That's funny

You spoke as a child because you're incapable of doing anything else. .. What? .. you think that's a secret?

You didn't address who stole the trillion dollars .. think I don't know why you didn't?

However, I do apologize for my comment that freedom is having the ability to evolve .. slipped my mind who I was talking to .. shouldn't have used concepts above your pay grade.

 

[DiamondDave]

Indivduals fit into SOCIETY, society does not bend to individual whims .. and that's true of any society one belongs to.

You keep talking about freedom as if you own it.

Is England a free society?

How about Canada, Sweden?

How about America .. because after all we have elements of socialism in our society?

What evolution is proving true is that like mixed economies of free market and government control, mixed philosopical ideologies of democracy and socialism work best for society.

It's important to note that you had to use the extreme example of madatory sex and Xbox's to make a false point. A society of Beavis and Buttheads would indeed expect such goofiness .. but an intelligent society would not, and an intelligent society would indeed demand universal healthcare when the evidence is clear that privtization of American health is not working.

This is not an argument I even need to have because it doesn't make one damn bit of difference that you can't see what's coming, or can't see it neccessity.

No.. an intelligent society would demand the freedom to take care of one's self... and to have the personal responsibility, given by freedom, to earn and provide for yourself... not giving up of that freedom with a 'by each according to their ability, to each according to their need' system that by definition is restrictive of freedom and chock-full of control

The evidence is clear that we are humans who crave freedom.. not a fucking hive of bees working for the collective

I take my freedom very seriously... I have fought and served to preserve my freedom and the freedoms of everyone in this country.... more and more socialist control systems is indeed against the concept of freedom and against the intent of the founding fathers, who yearned for the freedom you are so willing to strip away for a society of blank meaningless numbers under the all powerful and all providing central control system of elites

 

[DiamondDave]

That's funny

You spoke as a child because you're incapable of doing anything else. .. What? .. you think that's a secret?

You didn't address who stole the trillion dollars .. think I don't know why you didn't?

However, I do apologize for my comment that freedom is having the ability to evolve .. slipped my mind who I was talking to .. shouldn't have used concepts above your pay grade.

I spoke as an educated man and an experience man talking to a naive person with the childish belief in the concept of socialism as a basis of government and control over a country

As for who used the government to redistribute more monies around in redistribution for the sake of entities at the expense of the freedoms and earnings of others.. that would be the politicians from both side who have lost the ideals of what the free country is about

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Agreed

It is and it isn't. The benefit of the entire society is dependent on the behavior of individuals. Behavior is learned over time. In socialism people learn that their level of input will not change what they get out of the society in payments. So they learn not to work as hard because there it isn't any benefit to doing so. A good society is one where it's indivudauls realize they need to be productive in order to not be a burden to the rest of society if able. Socialism runs counter to that. It teaches that regardless of your efforts you will be taken care of.

I don't entirely disagree with that, which is why I'm a democratic socialist. I believe in mixed economies, mixed philosophical ideologies, and mixed people.

However, the behavior of individuals is less important than the behavior of society.

I invite you to Why Socialism, which is as profoundly true today as when Einstein wrote it in 1949

Unless the American Dream is dead (being able to achieve as much as you want), I don't think so.

Don't look now brother but the American people ARE demanding it and the chorus is growing .. AND as resources continue to shrink, like water, there will be more demands for doing what is in the common interest of all Americans.

What was the "American Dream" no longer exists for an ever-growing segment of our society, not just minorities or illegal immigrants .. but that's just part of the evolving and dynamic nature of life .. something conservatives have no ability to grasp .. (not calling you a conservative)

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I spoke as an educated man and an experience man talking to a naive person with the childish belief in the concept of socialism as a basis of government and control over a country

As for who used the government to redistribute more monies around in redistribution for the sake of entities at the expense of the freedoms and earnings of others.. that would be the politicians from both side who have lost the ideals of what the free country is about

Educated people don't use child-speak to support educated thought .. and I'm betting that I have at the absolute very least, as much education as you have. Frankly, I'm betting I have more, and I'm at the very fucking least, as accomplished and experienced as you. I'm betting I have more.

So how about saving that bullshit and instead try to use adult language to make your point .. or not.

 

[Bern80]

The job of government is to do what is the best interests of its citizens and its society. Civil rights is but one of a thousand examples where government stepped in to do what is best for its SOCIETY ... Feel free to call it being "mommy."

Right. Where you are wrong is how you define best interests. Apparently you think it is in the best interest that people absolve themselves of personal responsibility and foist it on to government. How is it in the best interest of people to learn that they are not accountable to themselves for their success or lack of it. You talk about societies evolving, which is extremely ironic seeing as how socialism provides clear incentives not to.

I do not share your idea of what you call "freedom" .. by any stretch of the imagination .. and apparently you have no concept of who is in control and who is generous with other people's money. It sure as fuck ain't socialists.

Your definition of freedom isn't freedom at all. By definition socialism is not freedom as you are capped at how much you can achieve for yourself. Don't pull this poppycock bullshit where freedom means only good things for people. Dave is right freedom has negatives as well. it assumes that, parish the thought, people take responsibility for themselves. And says those that don't take responsibility for themselves don't have the right to demand others take care of them.

 

[Bern80]

I Don't look now brother but the American people ARE demanding it and the chorus is growing .. AND as resources continue to shrink, like water, there will be more demands for doing what is in the common interest of all Americans.

With the liberal bias of our media outlets it is easy to see how one could percieve that. There are fewer socialists and liberals in this country than you think. They just make more noise.

What was the "American Dream" no longer exists for an ever-growing segment of our society, not just minorities or illegal immigrants .. but that's just part of the evolving and dynamic nature of life .. something conservatives have no ability to grasp .. (not calling you a conservative)

This is the self fulfilling prophecy I've alluded to before. People don't attain the American dream because they don't work for it, they just expect it. When it doesn't happen they have the ready made excuse built in, "it wasn't my fault". The man heald me down. The concept people on the left like you don't grasp is how very convenient blaming everyone else is. When sizing up where you are in life what you do FIRST is blame all of the extrinsic variables, rather than examining how the actions you have taken or not taken have contributed to where you find yourself. If you did so you would find, much more often than not, ultimately that it was you that got you where you are for better or for worse.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Right. Where you are wrong is how you define best interests. Apparently you think it is in the best interest that people absolve themselves of personal responsibility and foist it on to government. How is it in the best interest of people to learn that they are not accountable to themselves for their success or lack of it. You talk about societies evolving, which is extremely ironic seeing as how socialism provides clear incentives not to.

Wrong .. you're arguing a point I've never made and one that flies in the face of truth.

I repeat, AMERICA has some socialist functions of government that do not absolve anyone of "personal responsibility." .. and you have never read anything I said that even slightly suggests that it is in the best intersts of people to absolve themselves of it and hoist their responibility on government. You are repeating slogans, not addressing what I actually said.

This thread is about universal healthcare .. how in the hell does making healthcare available to all Americans absolving anyone of "personal responsibility?"

Does social security absolve seniors of personal responsibility? .. After all, they could eat dog food .. or they could just die .. or their family members could demonstrate all this so-called "volunteer giving" the right likes to talk about and support their old relatives themselves.

Address the facts of the failures of our present system, some of which I've posted, including the enormous runaway costs, America/society ever shrinking place among nations on healthcare even though we spend almost more than all of them put together, and the fact of many corporations now dropping healthcare and for many Americans if they lose their jobs they lose their coverage .. something you may be familiar with.

Then let's have that discussion about "personal responsibility"

Your definition of freedom isn't freedom at all. By definition socialism is not freedom as you are capped at how much you can achieve for yourself. Don't pull this poppycock bullshit where freedom means only good things for people. Dave is right freedom has negatives as well. it assumes that, parish the thought, people take responsibility for themselves. And says those that don't take responsibility for themselves don't have the right to demand others take care of them.

Don't get it twisted .. I'm not trying to convince you about my definition of freedom. I don't really give a damn if you agree with it or not.

This thread is about universal healthcare, and by extension, its socialistic aspects .. and you have yet to address a single fact about the failures of our current system and WHY so many Americans .. make that a majority of Americans .. make that also many republican conservative flag-waving so-called "patriotic" Americans .. are in favor of universal healthcare.

Instead you post prose about "freedom" that doesn't have shit to do with universal healthcare of anything I've said. The point of what I said to you was in asking if you even knew who it is that is stealing "other people's money", and apparenttly you don't.

Excuse me, but .. that just seems so incredibly silly and inane. Wall Street and the plutocrats they own just raped the US Treasury for a trillion dollars .. and here you are talking about "socialists don't like freedom, and socialists want to steal your money?"

The pluotocrats have conditioned you well .. that's how they get away with it.

Given that a growing number of Americans are in favor of universal healthcare, I suggest you support their "freedom" to recognize the failures of the current system and EVOLVE with the new dynamics of a changing world .. even if you don't.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

With the liberal bias of our media outlets it is easy to see how one could percieve that. There are fewer socialists and liberals in this country than you think. They just make more noise.

There are lots of liberals .. more than you think

There are few socialists .. less than you think

There is an ever-shrinking pool of republicans/conservatives .. less than you think

I have proof?

And of course, it's always the media's fault ..

This is the self fulfilling prophecy I've alluded to before. People don't attain the American dream because they don't work for it, they just expect it. When it doesn't happen they have the ready made excuse built in, "it wasn't my fault". The man heald me down. The concept people on the left like you don't grasp is how very convenient blaming everyone else is. When sizing up where you are in life what you do FIRST is blame all of the extrinsic variables, rather than examining how the actions you have taken or not taken have contributed to where you find yourself. If you did so you would find, much more often than not, ultimately that it was you that got you where you are for better or for worse.

Interesting ..

I've lived a very good life. Well paid for what I do and in demand. Wife is well paid, children educated. Business is good, can even work from home so I don't have to go outside and put gas my really sweet car .. very sweet .. and paid for.

I don't know who you're talking to but I don't fit any of that bullshit you just posted. I simply understand my responsibility to society as well as my responsibility to myself and my family.