The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[Bern80]

I don't think it is governments job to make choices for you...I think it can be within the purview of government to restict the sort of choices you can make. Are you suggesting, for example, that we legalize the sale of heroin?

When it comes to freedom of choice and what ones we should be allowed to make and which one's government should interfere with my view is pretty simple:

You should have the right to make any choice you want up until the point where your choices have an affect on others.

So legalization of drugs is tricky. Giveing someone the choice to sell heroine in of itself does not affect anyone because someone else has to choose to buy it. Honestly I haven't decided on that one. Some drugs like marajauna I think should be legalized, but heroine is pretty bad stuff to say the least, so im still undecuded.

 

[Bern80]

It can't run it efficiently. The problem is that it can run it more efficiently than the private sector can.

You have got to be kidding? Have you been to countries with socialized medicine? There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING government can run that the private sector can't run better.

For one main reason. The private sector has created a system that is built around curing people as opposed to prevention. We have the best doctors to cure diseases in the world. But once you are at the cure stages, you are much more likely to die and it is vastly more expensive.

Why is it you believe the government could run prevention medicine better? What is it about government that is better suited for this? I agree with your intial assesment that we are more on the curing side then the prevention side, but that is not a flaw of the private sector. it is the result of poor choices on the part of people. I'm think as I type this and I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of your proposal. If government takes control of health care and moves toward a prevention approach rather then curing then by neccesity you are going to be forced into legilsating the choices people can make as far as their health is concerned. So what exactley do you plan to do? Outlaw McDonalds, beer, salt, potato chips, all transfats foods, steak, cigarettes? Prevention requires that people make good choices.

I just seems that many people don't get the concept of freedom. Particularily the left. Freedom is the right of the people to make the choices they want, including the right to make poor ones. As soon as legislate the inability to make bad choices you have taken away freedom. And I'm sorry but bad choices is exactley what the price of freedom is.

I don't think that people should have the freedom to die from their poor choices.

If you believe that then they aren't really free at all are they?

 

[Larkinn]

You have got to be kidding? Have you been to countries with socialized medicine? There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING government can run that the private sector can't run better.

Countries with socialized medicine have better systems than the US by almost all standards. Britain, France, Australia all have lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, and came out much higher on the recently released WHO report we come 37th in the world. We come behind Morocco for ***** sake. Morocco! How is that possible?

Our healthcare system is broken. If you don't think government should take it over, come up with a better solution.

And yes I have been to countries with socialized medicine, and talked to their citizens. I haven't met 1 single person who would give up their system for Americas. Most of them find our system a travesty.

Why is it you believe the government could run prevention medicine better? What is it about government that is better suited for this? .

I think they can run it better, because they do so in other countries. Secondly Medicare is vastly more efficient than any private insurance company, and thirdly, insurance companies make vast, vast profits whereas the government does not need to make a profit. Hence they can put more of their money into services.

I agree with your intial assesment that we are more on the curing side then the prevention side, but that is not a flaw of the private sector. it is the result of poor choices on the part of people. I'm think as I type this and I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of your proposal. If government takes control of health care and moves toward a prevention approach rather then curing then by neccesity you are going to be forced into legilsating the choices people can make as far as their health is concerned. So what exactley do you plan to do? Outlaw McDonalds, beer, salt, potato chips, all transfats foods, steak, cigarettes? Prevention requires that people make good choices

Half of it is about choices, but people in other countries don't make any better choices. Its not as if the French or the English are health nuts. No, its that if you go to a doctor regularly and get a checkup you can find out that you have cancer, or diabetes, or some other common disease and have it treated. If you have cancer treated in the early stages it is so much cheaper than later on, and the death rate is so much lower. Why don't people go to the doctors? Expense. But then they can go, when they are dying because our ER rooms don't turn anyone away. But then the state and feds spend massive amounts of money trying to save people at the last minute, when if they had seen them earlier they could have saved money AND the patients life.

1/3 of the people in this country access to healthcare. They wait until they are dying, and then go to the ER. This is vastly vastly inefficient.

I just seems that many people don't get the concept of freedom. Particularily the left. Freedom is the right of the people to make the choices they want, including the right to make poor ones. As soon as legislate the inability to make bad choices you have taken away freedom. And I'm sorry but bad choices is exactley what the price of freedom is.

So where is the choice for the 1/3 of the people with no healthcare insurance in this country to go to the doctor?

You think there is only freedom from things. I believe in freedom FOR things as well. I prefer having the freedom to go to the doctor over the freedom to die. Perhaps its just me, but I suspect most people would pick that.

If you believe that then they aren't really free at all are they?

Where is the freedom in death?

 

[Bern80]

Countries with socialized medicine have better systems than the US by almost all standards. Britain, France, Australia all have lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, and came out much higher on the recently released WHO report we come 37th in the world. We come behind Morocco for ***** sake. Morocco! How is that possible?

Our healthcare system is broken. If you don't think government should take it over, come up with a better solution.

And yes I have been to countries with socialized medicine, and talked to their citizens. I haven't met 1 single person who would give up their system for Americas. Most of them find our system a travesty.

Fine but we're not talkin about other countires governments. We're talking about ours, which can run shit. Giving medicine over to government simply then becomes a very basic econ lesson. If something is free the demand for it goes up. if demand goes up supply is going to go down. which means simply that people will be waiting longer for healthcare. Ask a Canadien, they'll tell ya.

I think they can run it better, because they do so in other countries. Secondly Medicare is vastly more efficient than any private insurance company, and thirdly, insurance companies make vast, vast profits whereas the government does not need to make a profit. Hence they can put more of their money into services.

Unfortunately just because other countries can do it doesn't mean we can. We don't need yet another government beuracracy especially when it comes to people's health. the only thing that governmetn would solve is price by making it 'free'. I say 'free' because to do so will require a tax increase. Your forgetting obne key aspect as well, quality. Are other countries less expensive, sure. But why does the king of Saudi Arabia come to America to be treated? Because while it isn't the cheapest it is the highest quality health care system inthe world. Which would you rather have?

 

[Larkinn]

Fine but we're not talkin about other countires governments. We're talking about ours, which can run shit

Government is inefficient because its government, not because its the American government. Do you have any reason for thinking that government is more incompetent in America than in other nations?

Giving medicine over to government simply then becomes a very basic econ lesson. If something is free the demand for it goes up. if demand goes up supply is going to go down. which means simply that people will be waiting longer for healthcare. Ask a Canadien, they'll tell ya.

Yes, demand will go up in the short term. But once we correct for the last minute surgeries that we need massive amount of doctors for, overall demand will stay the same or go down. Again it is vastly more efficient to remove a small tumor than it is to remove a large one last minute.

Unfortunately just because other countries can do it doesn't mean we can.

Again...any reason to think that we can't?

the only thing that governmetn would solve is price by making it 'free'. I say 'free' because to do so will require a tax increase. Your forgetting obne key aspect as well, quality. Are other countries less expensive, sure. But why does the king of Saudi Arabia come to America to be treated? Because while it isn't the cheapest it is the highest quality health care system inthe world. Which would you rather have?

Nope, it wouldn't require a tax increase. If we managed to make our system as efficient as Britains, we would lop off half of the overall price of healthcare today. Know how much the feds pay today for healthcare in the US? Around 50%. Hey guess what...it about evens out.

Addressing quality, two points. First of all quality is useless if 1/3 of Americans can't afford to get it. Secondly, did you read the WHO stats? America ranks 37th in healthcare stats... AFTER all those countries with socialized medicine. And after the UAE, and Costa Rica, and Morocco. The US, in one aspect, does have the best healthcare in the world. We are the best, at saving people at the last minute. If you have a very advanced or complicated disease, come to the US, we can save you. But if you are poor and have a common disease...well you'll prolly die...but we'll try to save you at the last second...spending tens of thousands in the process.

 

[red states rule]

Government is inefficient because its government, not because its the American government. Do you have any reason for thinking that government is more incompetent in America than in other nations?



Yes, demand will go up in the short term. But once we correct for the last minute surgeries that we need massive amount of doctors for, overall demand will stay the same or go down. Again it is vastly more efficient to remove a small tumor than it is to remove a large one last minute.



Again...any reason to think that we can't?



Nope, it wouldn't require a tax increase. If we managed to make our system as efficient as Britains, we would lop off half of the overall price of healthcare today. Know how much the feds pay today for healthcare in the US? Around 50%. Hey guess what...it about evens out.

Addressing quality, two points. First of all quality is useless if 1/3 of Americans can't afford to get it. Secondly, did you read the WHO stats? America ranks 37th in healthcare stats... AFTER all those countries with socialized medicine. And after the UAE, and Costa Rica, and Morocco. The US, in one aspect, does have the best healthcare in the world. We are the best, at saving people at the last minute. If you have a very advanced or complicated disease, come to the US, we can save you. But if you are poor and have a common disease...well you'll prolly die...but we'll try to save you at the last second...spending tens of thousands in the process.

It would require a HUGE tax increase, Obama has said he would "pay" for his government run health care by repealing the Bush tax cuts ($400 billion there)

The UK's health care is a mess. They are so short of cash, some hospitals no longer wash the bed clothes - they tell the staff to turn the sheets over before sending them to the laundry

 

[Larkinn]

The UK's health care is a mess. They are so short of cash, some hospitals no longer wash the bed clothes - they tell the staff to turn the sheets over before sending them to the laundry

Why must you constantly lie? The UK's healthcare is in damned good shape. They have better numbers on most indicators than America does.

 

[Shogun]

Why must you constantly lie? The UK's healthcare is in damned good shape. They have better numbers on most indicators than America does.

hehehehehe....

im tellin you.. every RED government funded firetruck is a sign of Mao influenced socialism!

lord knows how well fire departments would be run if only they were a private business making profit on their services....

 

[Bern80]

Why must you constantly lie? The UK's healthcare is in damned good shape. They have better numbers on most indicators than America does.

I remeber one other little tid bit in the news. if there health care system is so great why would they bei considering denying surgery to smokers?

 

[maineman]

I remeber one other little tid bit in the news. if there health care system is so great why would they bei considering denying surgery to smokers?

risk management. would you give a heart transplant to a 90 year old man?

 

[CSM]

risk management. would you give a heart transplant to a 90 year old man?

Nope...i would have euthenized him at 75...wouldn't you?

 

[Larkinn]

I remeber one other little tid bit in the news. if there health care system is so great why would they bei considering denying surgery to smokers?

You remember that from a British propaganda rag that never backs up its sources. Funny how that was the only place that reported it.

By the way, if the US one is so great why are people dying in ER rooms?

 

[CSM]

You remember that from a British propaganda rag that never backs up its sources. Funny how that was the only place that reported it.

By the way, if the US one is so great why are people dying in ER rooms?

Bad news folks. Living as a human being is terminal!

 

[maineman]

Nope...i would have euthenized him at 75...wouldn't you?

of course not. but just like I would not give a heart transplant to a 90 year old, I wouldn't give a lung transplant to a chronic smoker either. I can understand why Great Britain might not want to throw surgical assets at someone who clearly does not care all that much about their own well-being and who is continuing to engage in activity which, according to research on the subject, limits the effectiveness of surgical procedures and complicates the recovery process.

risk management.

Would you spend seven hundred dollars on a new set of tires for a rusted out 1965 Rambler with a leaky transmission and a blown head gasket?

 

[CSM]

of course not. but just like I would not give a heart transplant to a 90 year old, I wouldn't give a lung transplant to a chronic smoker either. I can understand why Great Britain might not want to throw surgical assets at someone who clearly does not care all that much about their own well-being and who is continuing to engage in activity which, according to research on the subject, limits the effectiveness of surgical procedures and complicates the recovery process.

risk management.

Would you spend seven hundred dollars on a new set of tires for a rusted out 1965 Rambler with a leaky transmission and a blown head gasket?

This could lead to a very interesting philosophical duiscussion. In that vein, why should any country expend medical resources on trying to treat those who are seriously injured while commiting a crime? Think of all the money that would be saved in that aspect alone!

 

[CSM]

of course not. but just like I would not give a heart transplant to a 90 year old, I wouldn't give a lung transplant to a chronic smoker either. I can understand why Great Britain might not want to throw surgical assets at someone who clearly does not care all that much about their own well-being and who is continuing to engage in activity which, according to research on the subject, limits the effectiveness of surgical procedures and complicates the recovery process.

risk management.

Would you spend seven hundred dollars on a new set of tires for a rusted out 1965 Rambler with a leaky transmission and a blown head gasket?

Depends upon just what I wanted a 1965 Rambler for. Restoration efforts would certainly incoporate new tires. As a planter for my front lawn...naw, I'd just saw the roof off and fillit full of dirt then plant dandelions.

 

[Larkinn]

Also even as the Mail reported it, it never said that smokers were denied treatment, merely that they were put in a lower priority than non-smokers.

 

[Larkinn]

Bad news folks. Living as a human being is terminal!

I was referring to a recent case of a woman who died because of clear negligence.

of course not. but just like I would not give a heart transplant to a 90 year old, I wouldn't give a lung transplant to a chronic smoker either. I can understand why Great Britain might not want to throw surgical assets at someone who clearly does not care all that much about their own well-being and who is continuing to engage in activity which, according to research on the subject, limits the effectiveness of surgical procedures and complicates the recovery process.

People should not be sentenced to death because of poor choices.

And people are very, very different than cars.

 

[mattskramer]

I was referring to a recent case of a woman who died because of clear negligence.



People should not be sentenced to death because of poor choices.

And people are very, very different than cars.

That is part of the old argument that I call “me versus others” or “capitalism versus socialism”. Each side has good elements and bad elements. To what extent are we to help other who makes bad choices without resulting in their being conditioned to always rely on other people to help them out.

If we share all of our wealth so that those who don’t work get just as much money as those who do work, where is the incentive to be productive? Likewise, if we come to the medical aid of those who don’t take care of their health, where is the incentive to practice healthy behaviors?

On the other side, are we to have a society where every individual must look out for himself or die in the streets if he makes a mistake, falls on hard times? What of the poor and severely handicapped who will never be able to be self reliant?

It is a balancing act and I think that America does it pretty well. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, and other programs to help the poor and unhealthy. Yet, we also have incentives to encourage people to work hard and save/invest money when they can.

 

[Larkinn]

That is part of the old argument that I call “me versus others” or “capitalism versus socialism”. Each side has good elements and bad elements. To what extent are we to help other who makes bad choices without resulting in their being conditioned to always rely on other people to help them out.

I agree, but I do not think its acceptable to allow those bad choices to kill someone.

Likewise, if we come to the medical aid of those who don’t take care of their health, where is the incentive to practice healthy behaviors?

Umm, do you think surgery is enjoyable or always works? Just because I have health insurance does not mean I am going to jump in front of a car for fun.

It is a balancing act and I think that America does it pretty well. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, and other programs to help the poor and unhealthy. Yet, we also have incentives to encourage people to work hard and save/invest money when they can.

It is a balancing act, but I don't think the US does it well. We have the highest expenditure on healthcare per capita in the world and the 37th best healthcare system. Somewhere along the line, we are ******* up.