Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

That's the funniest thing I've heard so far ---- I guess I like the wild west.

Justin

Oops, in no way did I mean to insinuate the US is like the wild west! I was trying to draw a comparison between a governed state and one with fewer restrictions.

Originally Posted by majurey

Oops, in no way did I mean to insinuate the US is like the wild west! I was trying to draw a comparison between a governed state and one with fewer restrictions.

No I wasn't insulted ---- I really do like the wild west ---- I wish we could be a little bit more wild and I figured a good proper British chap as yourself might like a well governed state ----- I just thought how you said it was funny ----- No problem.


Justin

Originally Posted by DEwey

Then why did we have a war against the king? Surely the king wanted only the best for his subjects.

But, of course - I am not contesting the need for a federally governed army. My point was that on some level it is pretty much in the same spirit of providing national health insurance, i.e. things not explicitly authorized in the constitution are not automatically excluded.

Lastly, earlier you said that there isn't a Libertarian with a chance to win. That is obvious. The comment about twisting the Constitution to say that it does is silly.

I am not sure I am twisting anything here. The original post is about interpretation of the Constitution as libertarian - at least as far as my understanding of what is libertarian goes (which is individual liberties/freedom above all and infringed by the government to as little degree as possible).

If you hadn't noticed, I am saying that we should have principled government; Not government that does what they FEEL at the moment because the people FEEL like something. The fact is that the Founders very much feared Mob Rule and wrote the Constitution to provide lawful recognition of the things the Federal government can and cannot do. Believing otherwise is factually incorrect. Also, to both of our points, most Americans don't even know this and the politicians don't care to remind us because it gives them great power to be a Nanny state.

I am certain that you guys have much better knowledge than me of the historical context when the constitution was written (after all it's your constitution and presumably in school you study mostly american history). Most governments are intended to serve people and to follow principles. But it's the nature of the things that it doesn't work in the ideal way we want it to work. Of course you may be right - voters feel comfortable with a nanny state and the governments feel comfortable babysitting, but if that's true, there isn't anything with the society shifts to that type of government. Perhaps somebody can rise up and inspire people to start electing government officials that will give more responsibility to the individuals and retract the government's overinvolvment. That's something that can happen under the current framework just as going in the opposite direction.
My point has been only that the government essentially reflects the way voters want to be governed and that's the main goal the constitution tries to provide. Choosing representative vs. direct democracy is important to secure robustness, but it does not protect the rights of any minority, just minority over certain size.

Originally Posted by JMS

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Which part isn't true... the streets and back alleys, or the all over America?

I believe people are dying all over America (regardless of venue) because they can't afford healthcare at all or they can't afford sufficient healthcare.

Hardly a day goes by that there isn't a story in the news about someone who can't get treatment because they're uninsured, because their insurance won't cover the procedures, becasue they can't afford the drugs they need to treat the illness, because their insurance has reached a "lifetime limit", etc.

I agree that if you have a broken arm and no insurance you can go to a hospital and they most likely will treat you pro bono. But if you go needing an organ transplant, cancer treatment, a major operation, some costly medication, etc. I don't think you're likely to get the treatments you need. YMMV

Originally Posted by azjoe

Which part isn't true... the streets and back alleys, or the all over America?

I believe people are dying all over America (regardless of venue) because they can't afford healthcare at all or they can't afford sufficient healthcare.

Hardly a day goes by that there isn't a story in the news about someone who can't get treatment because they're uninsured, because their insurance won't cover the procedures, becasue they can't afford the drugs they need to treat the illness, because their insurance has reached a "lifetime limit", etc.

I agree that if you have a broken arm and no insurance you can go to a hospital and they most likely will treat you pro bono. But if you go needing an organ transplant, cancer treatment, a major operation, some costly medication, etc. I don't think you're likely to get the treatments you need. YMMV

I assume you mean the media thats in the back pocket of the liberals ? The same media that you just recently complained so bitterly about? The same media that depends on the worst stories to get an audience? The same media that every other story is " Hot breaking news"? Or is there another news media that I am unaware of?

I know I am opening a gigantic can of worms but I guess I will. This is a question that will ultimately face all of us on either side of the Socialized Medicine dilemma.

The question is: Is Free (Tax Supported) Medical Care a Natural Right of Citizenship (God help us ensure that it's for citizens!!! But that is another story. And no, I absolutely do not hate immigrants - I embrace immigration as a natural right.) If medical care is a natural right, is there a limit to the time or money that will be spent on treatment using taxpayers' money? Does rarity of ailment preclude some from be treated at all? If one would rather seek private treatment instead of waiting in line for the public clinic, is it legal to do so?

As we know, many countries have answered those questions by saying it is illegal to receive private treatment - forcing their own citizens to wait or leave the country (if they are financially able) to buy their treatment in another country. If it's a natural right, how can it be limited by mere cost.

If it is provided by the state for free (presumably not for profit) where do the drug companies and doctors find incentives to produce new and top notch technology to continue to offer the best treatments and services?

Finally, haven't we already seen this concept fail miserably everywhere it has been tried? (Right now, I believe that the Socialized Medicine countries are benefitting from the ingenuity of free-er market countries' technology - but I could be wrong.)

Thoughts?

A couple of people have stated our country is in trouble. They're right. This is the best, most succint, way I've seen it put as to why. Thanks to Traveller for forwarding this to me.



How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury"

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacen cy to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage

We live in the worst country, under the worst government on earth...except for all the other ones.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

A couple of people have stated our country is in trouble. They're right. This is the best, most succint, way I've seen it put as to why. Thanks to Traveller for forwarding this to me.



How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury"

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacen cy to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage

We live in the worst country, under the worst government on earth...except for all the other ones.

A truer word was never spoken!

Answers apply to UK only.

Originally Posted by DEwey

I know I am opening a gigantic can of worms but I guess I will. This is a question that will ultimately face all of us on either side of the Socialized Medicine dilemma.

The question is: Is Free (Tax Supported) Medical Care a Natural Right of Citizenship (God help us ensure that it's for citizens!!! But that is another story. And no, I absolutely do not hate immigrants - I embrace immigration as a natural right.) No, I don't think medical care is a natural right, but it is a social right in some places I guess. In the uk, immigrants also receive the same free healthcare (yep, loads of arguments over here about why taxpayers should support this, but then it's a negligible cost compared to the total cost).

If medical care is a natural right, is there a limit to the time or money that will be spent on treatment using taxpayers' money? This is a very good point in question. Yes, can be a limit of sorts. One example: you will always get treatment, but not necessarily the treatment you wish for. If there is a new drug on the market which is extremely pricey, you may get turned down and instead be given the treatment which is more established (and cheaper) for the health system. The algorithm they use to calculate this is called the QUALY (quality of life years). There's something like a £30,000-life-year cut-off in the UK, i.e. if a treatment costs more than £30,000 per year per individual, they might turn it down in favour of a cheaper medication. But you do still get treatment. And yes, until the day you die.

Does rarity of ailment preclude some from be treated at all? No.

If one would rather seek private treatment instead of waiting in line for the public clinic, is it legal to do so? Yes.

As we know, many countries have answered those questions by saying it is illegal to receive private treatment - forcing their own citizens to wait or leave the country (if they are financially able) to buy their treatment in another country. If it's a natural right, how can it be limited by mere cost. I agree. In the UK there is choice. In fact, practitioners who work for the NHS may also have private practices. And you can even take the money that would have been spent on you here and go to France (for instance) to get treatment there. Some choose this option because of waiting lists or difficulty in getting the precise treatment they want (see above). I believe we have the correct ethos: provide state healthcare for all, but do not block someone from the choice of paying for their own alternative care.

If it is provided by the state for free (presumably not for profit) where do the drug companies and doctors find incentives to produce new and top notch technology to continue to offer the best treatments and services? Drug companies work on a global market so remain unaffected in terms of R&D and innovation. The National Health Service still has to buy drugs from the pharma companies. And there are some very vicious intellectual property laws protecting their revenues. Seriously, don't worry about the pharma companies -- like cockroaches, they will survive the nuclear war. As for doctors innovating... UK has some of the strongest research in the world, partly because it is underpinned by a National Health Service. To get ahead in your medical career, you must publish research in internationally recognised journals which have stringent peer review systems. The research is both hospital and university-based and funded by the state and/or private institutes (Japanese ones particularly!). The journals The Lancet and the British Medical Journal are probably still the world's leading medical journals, alongside JAMA.

Finally, haven't we already seen this concept fail miserably everywhere it has been tried? (Right now, I believe that the Socialized Medicine countries are benefitting from the ingenuity of free-er market countries' technology - but I could be wrong.) Yes, but I don't think it has failed in many countries which have adopted it. The Scandanavian countries have especially successful national health services. France is good. The UK is being steadily eroded and chipped away at by the Labour government and I am seriously anxious for the future of our NHS. Closer to the US, Costa Rica is supposed to have excellent medical service, isn't it?

Thoughts?

I haven't seen Sicko yet... putting aside any dislike for the Director , how does it address the medical side of the original thread's question: What is the purpose of government?

Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences. I appreciate the dialog.
First, I have to address the Scandinavians. We all know they're so damn good looking and happy (and that 65% of their money goes right back to the government!) that their healthcare system was bound to work!

I have seen all of the other Michael Moore films (I am a small government advocate, but I do study the other side, too) but have yet to see Sicko. Of course, I saw reviews and behind the scenes stuff on the news magazine TV shows. Can't comment too much on that one except to say that Mr. Moore is obviously an America hater (in its present state at the very least) and free market basher. He does believe in Internationalism and a very intrusive state.

Costa Rica is considered quite a success as an example of a Libertarian-style government in action. I have read some ads and seen some shows about their healthcare and also have a relative by marriage that has retired to Costa Rica and medical care and low cost of living were cited as reasons for the move.

I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see that UK allows the public tax money to exit stage southeast and go to France for medical treatments. Very interesting.