Vermont approves single payer plan

[dblack]

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

The reasons in this case are economic and health. Those are two pretty big reasons.

HTH

So if I'm broke or sick and I can beat it out of my neighbor?

What does HTH mean?

 

[Bombur]

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

The reasons in this case are economic and health. Those are two pretty big reasons.

HTH

So if I'm broke or sick and I can beat it out of my neighbor?

What does HTH mean?

Hope this helps.

A nation can choose to be a poorer and less healthy nation in the name of "freedom" but I don't recommend it.

 

[dblack]

The reasons in this case are economic and health. Those are two pretty big reasons.

HTH

So if I'm broke or sick and I can beat it out of my neighbor?

What does HTH mean?

Hope this helps.

A nation can choose to be a poorer and less healthy nation in the name of "freedom" but I don't recommend it.

And you're willing to force people to follow your 'recommendation'?

 

[Bombur]

So if I'm broke or sick and I can beat it out of my neighbor?

What does HTH mean?

Hope this helps.

A nation can choose to be a poorer and less healthy nation in the name of "freedom" but I don't recommend it.

And you're willing to force people to follow your 'recommendation'?

Obviously I am for UHC.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

Every single health care system in a modern country besides our own.

Really? Name one because the quality of health care in this country is the highest in the world. Yes, other nations have done it cheaper, but at a cost of sacrificing quality and robbing people of their liberty, which you clearly have no issue with, which says a whole lot about you.

 

[Bombur]

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

Every single health care system in a modern country besides our own.

Really? Name one because the quality of health care in this country is the highest in the world. Yes, other nations have done it cheaper, but at a cost of sacrificing quality and robbing people of their liberty, which you clearly have no issue with, which says a whole lot about you.

We pay way more than other countries. I am making the argument that we could spend less than we do now and get better results than we do now if we had a better system. That if we spent what other nations spent and kept our current system we would have significantly worse results than other nations.

There are a couple of major things to consider, spending levels and the type of system. When you compare the US directly to another nation you are changing the system and the spending levels. Any difference in quality of care is more directly tied to the differences in spending than anything fundamentally wrong with the system in question but our system does have some advantages.

One example of an advantage the US system is that we have some very good hospitals. Single payer systems (like Medicaid and Medicare) can find it difficult to reward excellence.

Other nations generally have more choice when choosing their doctor than people in the US. The poor in other countries certainly have more freedom. Everyone is hurt by the inefficiencies built into the US system. Inelastic markets like health insurance and not exactly the best example of liberty in action.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, saving hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of everyone is "creepy."

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

Lets take your scenario and use it this way then; OK lets say the community is made up of many diverse people and cultures living within said community. Now the next thing that happens is a trend gets to going in and amongst the community, and that trend is to join a gang maybe. Then next the gang begins controlling and doing bad things all throughout the community, and people become helpless to stop them. Alright then next someone says in a community meeting that is formed once people have had enough, where as a man stands up and say's "hey lets bring in the police and/or the FBI to stop this mess", but quickly another one says, "you mean to tell me you are willing to give up your freedom to the police and/or the government in order to take care of this problem" ? So the person sits back down and thinks to himself that there is no hope then, yet meanwhile the one that challenged his idea to get the police involved or the FBI involved, was unbeknownst to him a man that is living secure and not at all afflicted by the gang's that have taken the area over, and this in as much as say others are, so why would he care as long as his turf was being protected, and him and his family is safe, yet others suffer around him greatly as a result of his inaction found in it all ?

Now who would represent the gang, and who would represent the people in many other scenario's/parable's that may match this one in which is now given? Think about it....

 

[guno]

Poor poeple from all around the nation will flood to the state with "free HC" while anyone that pays taxes will be running as fast as they can.

Gee didn't we hear this argument back in 1964 when medicare was introduced? Now you have teahadists yelling keep the government out of my medicare!!

 

[dblack]

What government program has ever accomplished such a thing?

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

Lets take your scenario and use it this way then; OK lets say the community is made up of many diverse people and cultures living within said community. Now the next thing that happens is a trend gets to going in and amongst the community, and that trend is to join a gang maybe. Then next the gang begins controlling and doing bad things all throughout the community, and people become helpless to stop them. Alright then next someone says in a community meeting that is formed once people have had enough, where as a man stands up and say's "hey lets bring in the police and/or the FBI to stop this mess", but quickly another one says, "you mean to tell me you are willing to give up your freedom to the police and/or the government in order to take care of this problem" ? So the person sits back down and thinks to himself that there is no hope then, yet meanwhile the one that challenged his idea to get the police involved or the FBI involved, was unbeknownst to him a man that is living secure and not at all afflicted by the gang's that have taken the area over, and this in as much as say others are, so why would he care as long as his turf was being protected, and him and his family is safe, yet others suffer around him greatly as a result of his inaction found in it all ?

Now who would represent the gang, and who would represent the people in many other scenario's/parable's that may match this one in which is now given maybe? Think about it....

What? Protecting us from violent crime IS, obviously, a 'damned good reason' to pass a law and get the police involved. That's what they're there for. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at. What we're discussing here is forcing compliance with a program because some people think it will be more 'efficient'. Don't you think it should require something more than the convenience of the majority before we start forcing people to fall in line? Don't you think we can manage our health care without such draconian measures?

 

[beagle9]

I don't know that it has, I just want to be clear that efficiency isn't a good enough reason to force compliance to a proposed 'system'.

People seem to want to cast libertarians as radicals or extremists, and I've always seen us as the opposite. We're the moderating force in most circumstances, often the only people asking 'Do we really need to get the police involved?" when it comes to solving our problems as a society. We believe voluntary cooperation is preferable to coercive mandates. If there's not a damned good reason, no one should take up arms against their neighbor for their own convenience.

Lets take your scenario and use it this way then; OK lets say the community is made up of many diverse people and cultures living within said community. Now the next thing that happens is a trend gets to going in and amongst the community, and that trend is to join a gang maybe. Then next the gang begins controlling and doing bad things all throughout the community, and people become helpless to stop them. Alright then next someone says in a community meeting that is formed once people have had enough, where as a man stands up and say's "hey lets bring in the police and/or the FBI to stop this mess", but quickly another one says, "you mean to tell me you are willing to give up your freedom to the police and/or the government in order to take care of this problem" ? So the person sits back down and thinks to himself that there is no hope then, yet meanwhile the one that challenged his idea to get the police involved or the FBI involved, was unbeknownst to him a man that is living secure and not at all afflicted by the gang's that have taken the area over, and this in as much as say others are, so why would he care as long as his turf was being protected, and him and his family is safe, yet others suffer around him greatly as a result of his inaction found in it all ?

Now who would represent the gang, and who would represent the people in many other scenario's/parable's that may match this one in which is now given maybe? Think about it....

What? Protecting us from violent crime IS, obviously, a 'damned good reason' to pass a law and get the police involved. That's what they're there for. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at. What we're discussing here is forcing compliance with a program because some people think it will be more 'efficient'. Don't you think it should require something more than the convenience of the majority before we start forcing people to fall in line? Don't you think we can manage our health care without such draconian measures?

Yes we can, and so why haven't we done that, and why has it gotten to this point to begin with ? Obama shouldn't of had this as one of his reasons to jump on the issue, but there it was for him to exploit.

 

[dblack]

Lets take your scenario and use it this way then; OK lets say the community is made up of many diverse people and cultures living within said community. Now the next thing that happens is a trend gets to going in and amongst the community, and that trend is to join a gang maybe. Then next the gang begins controlling and doing bad things all throughout the community, and people become helpless to stop them. Alright then next someone says in a community meeting that is formed once people have had enough, where as a man stands up and say's "hey lets bring in the police and/or the FBI to stop this mess", but quickly another one says, "you mean to tell me you are willing to give up your freedom to the police and/or the government in order to take care of this problem" ? So the person sits back down and thinks to himself that there is no hope then, yet meanwhile the one that challenged his idea to get the police involved or the FBI involved, was unbeknownst to him a man that is living secure and not at all afflicted by the gang's that have taken the area over, and this in as much as say others are, so why would he care as long as his turf was being protected, and him and his family is safe, yet others suffer around him greatly as a result of his inaction found in it all ?

Now who would represent the gang, and who would represent the people in many other scenario's/parable's that may match this one in which is now given maybe? Think about it....

What? Protecting us from violent crime IS, obviously, a 'damned good reason' to pass a law and get the police involved. That's what they're there for. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at. What we're discussing here is forcing compliance with a program because some people think it will be more 'efficient'. Don't you think it should require something more than the convenience of the majority before we start forcing people to fall in line? Don't you think we can manage our health care without such draconian measures?

Yes we can, and so why haven't we done that, and why has it gotten to this point to begin with ? Obama shouldn't of had this as one of his reasons to jump on the issue, but there it was for him to exploit.

Yep. Those are the questions that should have informed health care reform, rather than a bait and switch to ratchet up state power.