Thread: Health Care in the USA

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If I could be convinced that it is:

1. Necessary that US taxpayers (the middle class) including you (well, not you, but for the sake of argument you ) and people I don't know who may or may not want to pay my medical bills in order for my rights to life and liberty to be protected
2. Necessary that I pay for your medical bills in order for your rights to be protected
3. Necessary in order for the U.S. to continue to exist as a sovereign nation

Then yes I would be all for nationalized health coverage (but Congress would still have to come up with the money to pay for it)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

From your replies about transport, education and defense it seems to me that you are to some extent arguing a distinction without a difference. We all tend to do that about things that matter to us - I live in a country that is for all practical intents and purposes a republic and yet I still think of myself as a subject of the Crown - and I think that the fact that we cherish our beliefs about ourselves and our countries engenders a heathy reluctance to change them too quickly. So more power to you; keep digging your heels in and asking questions.

I would ask you to consider this: If there is a way that individual's lives can be made longer and more fruitful by collective action, is not a country governed by respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness duty bound to consider pursuing it? I think that our individual rights and our duty to our neighbours march together and are not easily separated. After all our enjoyment of our rights depends to a large extent on our neighbours's acceptance of their duties.


Best Regards

goshawk

Originally Posted by goshawk

I think that our individual rights and our duty to our neighbours march together and are not easily separated. After all our enjoyment of our rightd depends to a large extent on our neighbours acceptance of their duties.

I agree with what you just said and would have said it myself if I thought it was in question. I live in a socialist family: my one year old produces nothing, but I share everything that I deem good for her with her. And I live in a semi-socialist neighborhood where families and organizations help each other out. Communities need to have their freedoms protected by local and federal government to band together and make good decisions and raise money and spend it wisely. I'm all for it

But it is not the role of central government to become the Great Community. It is not a charity organization. Should we change the name of Congress to The Salvation Army, and make sure donations are required? Will the Supreme Court be renamed the Board of Directors? The federal government is not supposed to be my neighbor; rather it is supposed to protect my freedom to make neighbors.

I get that private health insurance doesn't cover everything or everyone in the US. And I am not smart enough to understand what a good answer is, but I am a skilled armchair analyzer and can detect a load of crap when I smell one. The healthcare bill was founded on the premise that people simply can't take care of themselves. I say that is a weak foundation.

If Congress and the White House are so wise that they can not only play government, but charity too (for decades now?), maybe they could offer the private sector a better plan? Maybe Obama could step down and offer one of the giant insurance companies his services as CEO? Or whoever feels they are capable of running a nationalized system. Let them do it in the private sector. No, the basic premise - and Obama said it during the campaign more than once - is mandatory participation. How is that encouraging freedom and protection of individual liberty?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I agree with what you just said and would have said it myself if I thought it was in question. I live in a socialist family: my one year old produces nothing, but I share everything that I deem good for her with her. And I live in a semi-socialist neighborhood where families and organizations help each other out. Communities need to have their freedoms protected by local and federal government to band together and make good decisions and raise money and spend it wisely. I'm all for it

But it is not the role of central government to become the Great Community. It is not a charity organization. Should we change the name of Congress to The Salvation Army, and make sure donations are required? Will the Supreme Court be renamed the Board of Directors? The federal government is not supposed to be my neighbor; rather it is supposed to protect my freedom to make neighbors.

I get that private health insurance doesn't cover everything or everyone in the US. And I am not smart enough to understand what a good answer is, but I am a skilled armchair analyzer and can detect a load of crap when I smell one. The healthcare bill was founded on the premise that people simply can't take care of themselves. I say that is a weak foundation.

If Congress and the White House are so wise that they can not only play government, but charity too (for decades now?), maybe they could offer the private sector a better plan? Maybe Obama could step down and offer one of the giant insurance companies his services as CEO? Or whoever feels they are capable of running a nationalized system. Let them do it in the private sector. No, the basic premise - and Obama said it during the campaign more than once - is mandatory participation. How is that encouraging freedom and protection of individual liberty?

I agree with what you've said, Lee.

As an aside, regarding Obama's statements that any such plan would mandate participation, all I can say is I hope those suffering from paranoia don't read this thread. That's all they'd need to add more to their insomnia. I can see them chewing on their fingernails now: "Mandatory vaccines for everyone with an added dose of mind control juice then? Arrghhh!"

Chris L

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The healthcare bill was founded on the premise that people simply can't take care of themselves. I say that is a weak foundation.

I say that's a foundation solid as a rock.

Originally Posted by gugi

I say that's a foundation solid as a rock.

I completely agree. Individuals are horrible at making rational, good decisions. For the most part. We are emotional, and emotions play a role in the decision making process.

As for the inalienable rights. Humans are born with those inalienable rights that no one can take away. While I may agree with the spirit of that sentiment, the Constitution apparently does not. If the liberty is not among the 10, we are not guaranteed that liberty. My view of liberty is also a lot more narrow than yours.

I wonder what the author of that book defined as liberty? Probably an interesting read. The author of the phrase also believed in life libery and property; not pursuit of happiness. Not sure about the rest of you, but I would not want to live back then. Think your oppressed now....

Originally Posted by Leighton

I completely agree. Individuals are horrible at making rational, good decisions. For the most part. We are emotional, and emotions play a role in the decision making process.

Then who's to make the decisions? Some other individual that's horrible at making rational, good decisions? If I'm to be subjected to the effects any individuals decisions, good or bad, I'd rather that they be my decisions and not some arrogant SOB that thinks he knows what's best for me.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Compassionate conservatism in action.

A system of welfare dependency where society is forced to be an accomplice shows much more compassion.

Originally Posted by Leighton

I completely agree. Individuals are horrible at making rational, good decisions. For the most part. We are emotional, and emotions play a role in the decision making process.

This is the second time you've said this or something like it and I still don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I would agree that:

-Some individuals aren't good at making rational decisions all the time

-Some individuals aren't good at making rational decisions when there an emotional or stressful component (Most of the time)

-Some individuals aren't good at making rational decisions in highly emotionally charged situations (some of the time)

But I have a hard time believing that all people are bad at rational decisions all of the time.

If I concede what seems to be your premise then I also have a hard time believing what seems to be implied in that there is some benefit in putting these irrational persons into a group that will make them better decision makers. We usually call a bunch of overemotional people unable to make rational decisions a mob.

As I am sure that isn't what you are saying, I would like to know what you ARE saying?

Originally Posted by honedright

Then who's to make the decisions? Some other individual that's horrible at making rational, good decisions? If I'm to be subjected to decisions, good or bad, I'd rather that they be my decisions and not some arrogant SOB that thinks he knows what's best for me.

I agree with you. Definitely a catch 22 problem. Certainly no right answer.

However, studies have shown that groups of people when deciding things together generally come to better decisions and conclusions than a single person acting individually.

In the end, I would like to have a very basic health insurance plan that is paid for by my taxes. And have the option of purchasing additional insurance if I feel the need. I want to know that if I got hit by a car today, my medical bills would be covered. I'm not afraid of cancer or a heart condition, or some other sickness. I am more concerned about the freak accidents that make healthy people need medical care.

As to who gets to decide what care I get. I want my doctor to decide. At least s/he's well informed. And if I disagree with him/her, I'll go find another one.

Originally Posted by Leighton

As to who gets to decide what care I get. I want my doctor to decide. At least s/he's well informed. And if I disagree with him/her, I'll go find another one.

I feel I'm ill informed about the current debate in regard to a national government run healthcare plan and it's my own fault. I have to read more on this issue. I say this because my understanding is that should some form of government run program be instituted, the crux of the issue then would be that you WOULDN'T be able to "go find another one". The government would decide what care you could or could not get. Am I wrong on this?

Chris L