Freedom in the US: When?

[Beerina]

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85904) wonders why, oh why, since "the votes" are there, that a massive reduction of freedom cannot be permanently achieved.

I mean, if the votes are there, why shouldn't vox populi = vox dei?

Greater minds than ours made it very difficult to force religion on everybody, but we should whittle away at it every chance we get, right?

That's what democracy is about, right? I know freedom is in my dictionary somewhere. Ahh, here it is. Whatever the people can be convinced is good such that you can get 51% of the vote even momentarily, can be made law.

Odd. I didn't think it meant that.

[D'rok]

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85904) wonders why, oh why, since "the votes" are there, that a massive reduction of freedom cannot be permanently achieved.

Universal Health Care is a massive reduction in freedom? Give it a rest. You're as bad as Oliver. Liberty is not license. Civic freedom is not the absence of external impediments.


You know what shrill libertarian rhetoric really needs? Some real-world application. Let's have a libertarian revolution somewhere so we can evaluate the concrete political reality of this ideology. Let's see if you can actualize absolute liberty in a nation-state without resorting to totalitarianism in the same way that communism resorts to totalitarianism to actualize absolute equality.

Get off your soapbox and bring forth your self-evident truths about liberty onto the concrete stage of nation-states where History can judge them. Maybe History will prove you right. Until then...I'm sorry, but liberalism is still the winner.

But what would I know? I live in un-free Soviet Kanuckistan.

[Earthborn]

Universal Health Care is a massive reduction in freedom?Yep. the American health system seems to be based on three fundamental freedoms:

The Freedom to Mooch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html): the freedom to get highly expensive emergency room care without ever having to contribute into the system that pays for it.
The Freedom to Steal: the freedom to take people's insurance money and then throw them out of the insurance if they might need to make a claim.
The Freedom to Bankrupt: the freedom the charge exorbitantly high prices to sick people even if they no longer have health insurance or will ever make enough money to pay it all.

I wonder which freedom Beerina is going to miss most.

[BPSCG]

Yep. the American health system seems to be based on three fundamental freedoms:The Freedom to Steal: the freedom to take people's insurance money and then throw them out of the insurance if they might need to make a claim.Heh. I spent about five days in the hospital a few years ago, getting my chest cracked open and heart re-routed. Got a bill from the hospital a few weeks later - evidently it hadn't hit my HMO yet. It was something like $68,000, and that was just for the hospital, not the surgeon. I just laughed, the idea of being able to pay it was so ludicrous. I then called my HMO and they assured me they were going to pay it.

Saw my internist a couple of weeks ago for a routine checkup. Given my age, she recommended some tests that I wouldn't otherwise do.

Funny, there's never been any talk about throwing me out. Just lucky, I guess...

[Admiral]

Earthborn's "Freedom to mooch" seems a little odd to me, since that's exactly what liberals support- the right of people to things they don't pay for (more specifically, that OTHER people pay for).

Could you be specific- what kind of mooching do libertarians do?

[D'rok]

Earthborn's "Freedom to mooch" seems a little odd to me, since that's exactly what liberals support- the right of people to things they don't pay for (more specifically, that OTHER people pay for).

Liberals don't pay taxes? Who are these "OTHER people" that pay for all the things that mooching liberals claim as entitlements?

[Earthborn]

Earthborn's "Freedom to mooch" seems a little odd to me, since that's exactly what liberals supportWhether American "liberals" support such a thing is irrelevant. "Freedom to mooch" is the opposite of universal healthcare, in which everyone chips in and everyone who needs care gets it.

Could you be specific- what kind of mooching do libertarians do?I've heard self-proclaimed Libertarians that they should be free to live without health insurance if they choose to, and that people who can't get health insurance shouldn't complain because they can always go to the emergency room and get care for free.

If you are the kind of Libertarian who prefers leaving people to die if they cannot afford being cured, then you are not the kind of Libertarian who favours mooching.

[Complexity]

I'm libertarian. I'm not at all in favor of mooching.

[slingblade]

I'm in favor of staying alive. Apparently, this may be arrogant of me.

[UserGoogol]

Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want. When people are sick, they are less capable of satisfying their rights, that is, their freedoms are being taken away. This is absolutely no different from if a human being decides to take my freedoms away by attacking me. If it is morally acceptable to tax people so as to fund services which protect people from other people (police) then it is also morally acceptable to fund services which protect people from disease. (Of course, some libertarians do think that it is not okay to tax people so as to fund police programs. Justifying the state itself is harder than justifying a particular government program, so I think I may only address that argument if other people raise it.)

Hell, if anything universal health care seems more justifiable than police, since with health care you don't need to worry about protecting the rights of criminals.

[Gurdur]

Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want. When people are sick, they are less capable of satisfying their rights, that is, their freedoms are being taken away.


A very interesting argument, UserGoogol,from a very new angle. In my case, such an argument is superfluous to the way I think, but thank-you.

Justifying the state itself is harder than justifying a particular government program,


You think so?
The main kind of libertarianism pushed around here and around the place generally is a whiney, whiney Greed-Is-Good, How-Dare-They-Tax-Me, I'm-Alright-Everyone-Else-Can-Die, sociopathic narcissism. The promoters demand the state cater to their personal whims, and they recognise zero humane obligations.

Sociopathic, self-centered libetarianism of that kind is just so Marie Antoinette ("Let them eat cake"), and also just so 1651. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29)

_________________

I'm in favor of staying alive. Apparently, this may be arrogant of me.


Yeah well, you already knew what the whiney sociopaths around the place are like. Take comfort in the fact that they're a bunch of terminally useless twits who are totally ineffectively irrelevant to real life, and also who couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel.

[Puppycow]

I'm conflicted. I'm libertarian in that I think the War on Drugs and other examples of the nanny state "saving people from themselves" are bad, but I also am in favor of basic universal healthcare. That is, if you ruin your own health by smoking, taking drugs, or overeating, I don't think society should pay for that (of course if you tax those, the proceeds could pay for the later health costs that will arise). I also don't think society should pay for cosmetic surgery or fertility treatments.

So if you want universal healthcare, then I think you shouldn't object if government bans transfats or taxes them, etc.

[Puppycow]

Ok, here’s the plan: Figure out what things are bad for people’s health; quantify the effect on medical costs, and tax them to that extent. Tax cigarettes to pay for all excess lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and anything else caused. Same for all other drugs, as well as things like trans fats. Anything that has a significant effect on health. That way, non-smokers don’t have to pay extra to cover smokers, non-crackheads don’t have to pay extra to cover crackheads, etc.

[BPSCG]

Ok, here’s the plan: Figure out what things are bad for people’s health; quantify the effect on medical costs, and tax them to that extent. Tax cigarettes to pay for all excess lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and anything else caused. Same for all other drugs, as well as things like trans fats. Anything that has a significant effect on health. That way, non-smokers don’t have to pay extra to cover smokers, non-crackheads don’t have to pay extra to cover crackheads, etc.Sounds like a good idea. We should implement it as soon as you can answer some questions:

Should you get taxed extra because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack?
Should you get taxed less because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, but also has very little mental stress, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack but decreasing your risk of emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion and is also highly mentally stressful, thereby increasing your risk of both heart attack and emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more or less when you quit that job in #3 and have trouble finding work afterwards?
Should I get taxed more than the guy sitting at the next desk doing the same work, because I go to the gym and run a few miles a few times a week, but less than Mrs. BPSCG, who goes to the gym every day?
Should Mrs. BPSCG get taxed less than me because even though we share a grocery cart, her eating habits are better than mine?
Should I get taxed more after I retire next year, because I will be more likely to sit at home and watch TV, or less because I won't have the on-the-job stress and won't be fighting traffic every morning?
Who's going to be checking up on me to see if I'm exercising as much as I claim to? If I order a pizza from Domino's, will my premiums go up?

[Giggywig]

Sounds like a good idea. We should implement it as soon as you can answer some questions:

Should you get taxed extra because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack?
Should you get taxed less because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, but also has very little mental stress, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack but decreasing your risk of emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion and is also highly mentally stressful, thereby increasing your risk of both heart attack and emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more or less when you quit that job in #3 and have trouble finding work afterwards?
Should I get taxed more than the guy sitting at the next desk doing the same work, because I go to the gym and run a few miles a few times a week, but less than Mrs. BPSCG, who goes to the gym every day?
Should Mrs. BPSCG get taxed less than me because even though we share a grocery cart, her eating habits are better than mine?
Should I get taxed more after I retire next year, because I will be more likely to sit at home and watch TV, or less because I won't have the on-the-job stress and won't be fighting traffic every morning?
Who's going to be checking up on me to see if I'm exercising as much as I claim to? If I order a pizza from Domino's, will my premiums go up?
9. Should you get taxed more because you work at a physical job and have a greater risk of injury or maiming?

[Admiral]

Whether American "liberals" support such a thing is irrelevant. "Freedom to mooch" is the opposite of universal healthcare, in which everyone chips in and everyone who needs care gets it.

Here's an honest question- in your view, everything in universal health care "balances out," so to speak, so it's a fair system. How does that even make sense? You're in favor of progressive redistribution in terms of paying for health care, right? Do you not consider that mooching?

I've heard self-proclaimed Libertarians that they should be free to live without health insurance if they choose to, and that people who can't get health insurance shouldn't complain because they can always go to the emergency room and get care for free.

So I don't quite understand. Are you against laws requiring emergency rooms to provide free care?


If you are the kind of Libertarian who prefers leaving people to die if they cannot afford being cured, then you are not the kind of Libertarian who favours mooching.

I don't quite see how that's the definition of mooching.

[Admiral]

Liberals don't pay taxes? Who are these "OTHER people" that pay for all the things that mooching liberals claim as entitlements?

No, liberals pay taxes. Some pay a lot. Please don't put words in my mouth.

However, they're also (in general) in favor of redistribution and progressive taxation- in other words, giving people things that other (generally rich) people paid for.

You seem to have a belief that since everyone (give or take) pays taxes, and everyone gets government services, "everything evens out." You don't see why that's an odd attitude? Hey, if everything "evens out," then why even HAVE the whole taxation system?

Here's my point. I'm not one of those people who thinks that welfare is evil. I'm also not a tax protestor- I don't try to find ways of reducing the taxes I pay. But I do think that welfare and other redistribution systems are the definition of mooching. We can argue whether they're good or not, of course, that's a seperate issue- but it's odd to deny that redistribution IS mooching.

[Beerina]

Yep. the American health system seems to be based on three fundamental freedoms:

The Freedom to Mooch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html): the freedom to get highly expensive emergency room care without ever having to contribute into the system that pays for it.

Require people to have insurance coverage? And why is this done? To protect hospitals from unpaid expenses when they are themselves required to service people whether they can pay or not.

It's stacking a problem on top of a problem.

Freedom to Steal: the freedom to take people's insurance money and then throw them out of the insurance if they might need to make a claim.

I would argue this is fraud on the part of insurance companies, even if they hide it deep in the fine print. You can't call yourself insurance if you throw people out, or jack up the rates astronomically if they make a large claim or suddenly need catastrophic or long-term care.

The government should do it's job and protect against fraud.

The Freedom to Bankrupt: the freedom the charge exorbitantly high prices to sick people even if they no longer have health insurance or will ever make enough money to pay it all.

Here's the problem: Everybody wants the best coverage.

Here's another problem: It's expensive to have the bleeding edge technology.

Here's a third problem: If you don't pay for it somehow, it disappears. And if you reduce it via law (the anti-freedom of pointing a gun at doctors and paying them less) you reduce the rate of development.

And you then slowly (or not so slowly) end up causing more misery and death.

Have you helped anyone?

I wonder which freedom Beerina is going to miss most.

I'll miss living in a society as advanced as it could have been.


It's simple, people. Run two parallel worlds. One advancing tech at a rate of x. The other a kind, socialist world at a rate of 0.8x.

After one century, the socialist world has 0.8x the tech of the non-kind world. Had this been done in 1900, you'd now have about 1987 medical tech instead of 2007 tech.

Anyone want free medical 1987 tech, or greedy 2007 tech?

Plug in any number you want for the 0.8 above, but I assure you it will not be above 1.0.

Who have you helped? It's that simple. You feel like you've helped, but you've just created a gigantic road to hell paved with you know what.

[D'rok]

No, liberals pay taxes. Some pay a lot. Please don't put words in my mouth.

However, they're also (in general) in favor of redistribution and progressive taxation- in other words, giving people things that other (generally rich) people paid for.

You seem to have a belief that since everyone (give or take) pays taxes, and everyone gets government services, "everything evens out." You don't see why that's an odd attitude? Hey, if everything "evens out," then why even HAVE the whole taxation system?

Here's my point. I'm not one of those people who thinks that welfare is evil. I'm also not a tax protestor- I don't try to find ways of reducing the taxes I pay. But I do think that welfare and other redistribution systems are the definition of mooching. We can argue whether they're good or not, of course, that's a seperate issue- but it's odd to deny that redistribution IS mooching.

If that's your position, to be consistent, you would have to be against health insurance whether it's private or public - i.e., it also fits your definition of mooching. Those premiums you pay go for two things: 1. Providing medical service to others (and yourself if necessary). 2. Profit. A public system just removes 2 and shifts funding to tax revenue.

So by your definition, private health insurance is redistributive mooching - partially to others in the form of services, and partially to others in the form of profits.

[Puppycow]

Sounds like a good idea. We should implement it as soon as you can answer some questions:

Should you get taxed extra because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack?
Should you get taxed less because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion, but also has very little mental stress, thereby increasing your risk of heart attack but decreasing your risk of emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more because you work at a sedentary job that requires little physical exertion and is also highly mentally stressful, thereby increasing your risk of both heart attack and emotional troubles like depression and anxiety?
Should you get taxed more or less when you quit that job in #3 and have trouble finding work afterwards?
Should I get taxed more than the guy sitting at the next desk doing the same work, because I go to the gym and run a few miles a few times a week, but less than Mrs. BPSCG, who goes to the gym every day?
Should Mrs. BPSCG get taxed less than me because even though we share a grocery cart, her eating habits are better than mine?
Should I get taxed more after I retire next year, because I will be more likely to sit at home and watch TV, or less because I won't have the on-the-job stress and won't be fighting traffic every morning?
Who's going to be checking up on me to see if I'm exercising as much as I claim to? If I order a pizza from Domino's, will my premiums go up?
No to all of those. Too complicated. Unless you can think of an efficient and foolproof way to implement such a scheme. Just products. Mostly cigarettes and harmful drugs really. Pay as you go. Very simple. For the rest, ordinary basic health care for the average non-drug-taking, reasonably normal person, that gets paid for out of income taxes.

[Beerina]

Earthborn's "Freedom to mooch" seems a little odd to me, since that's exactly what liberals support- the right of people to things they don't pay for (more specifically, that OTHER people pay for).

Could you be specific- what kind of mooching do libertarians do?

It's interesting. Although it's difficult to pay for rapidly advancing tech, people getting it through the magic of forcing doctors to give it for low cost is the essence of mooching.

Actually, it's the opposite. A mooch just begs. He doesn't threaten jail.

Here, kind doctors. You produce wonders. I cannot pay for it. You shall therefore charge less, or I shall put you in jail.

WTF!

And one expects doctors to continue producing them at the same rate? Because some charismatic politician can play a successful whiney-whine game with the voting populace?

[D'rok]

Require people to have insurance coverage? And why is this done? To protect hospitals from unpaid expenses when they are themselves required to service people whether they can pay or not.

It's stacking a problem on top of a problem.



I would argue this is fraud on the part of insurance companies, even if they hide it deep in the fine print. You can't call yourself insurance if you throw people out, or jack up the rates astronomically if they make a large claim or suddenly need catastrophic or long-term care.

The government should do it's job and protect against fraud.



Here's the problem: Everybody wants the best coverage.

Here's another problem: It's expensive to have the bleeding edge technology.

Here's a third problem: If you don't pay for it somehow, it disappears. And if you reduce it via law (the anti-freedom of pointing a gun at doctors and paying them less) you reduce the rate of development.

And you then slowly (or not so slowly) end up causing more misery and death.

Have you helped anyone?



I'll miss living in a society as advanced as it could have been.


It's simple, people. Run two parallel worlds. One advancing tech at a rate of x. The other a kind, socialist world at a rate of 0.8x.

After one century, the socialist world has 0.8x the tech of the non-kind world. Had this been done in 1900, you'd now have about 1987 medical tech instead of 2007 tech.

Anyone want free medical 1987 tech, or greedy 2007 tech?

Plug in any number you want for the 0.8 above, but I assure you it will not be above 1.0.

Who have you helped? It's that simple. You feel like you've helped, but you've just created a gigantic road to hell paved with you know what.


Humans are motivated by more than greed. Particularly those in the medical profession - even those developing new technologies. I would like to see the results of your hypothetical experiment. Until then, your assumptions are baseless. Maximizing greed is not likely to maximize public good. Neither is eliminating greed (if that were somehow even possible). Managing greed just might.

[Beerina]

And if we're gonna tax people for lifestyles, can we tax people for being lazy in school, and thus contribute less to society?

[Beerina]

Humans are motivated by more than greed. Particularly those in the medical profession - even those developing new technologies. I would like to see the results of your hypothetical experiment. Until then, your assumptions are baseless. Maximizing greed is not likely to maximize public good. Neither is eliminating greed (if that were somehow even possible). Managing greed just might.

Last century is replete with hundreds of economic "experiments" that clearly show a strong correlation between economic freedom and the advancement of technology.

And government can and does help this via spending on medical development and tax breaks. But wouldn't you want both? Of course you would.

But I find it disturbing in the extreme to think well of the sentiment that, well, doctors will continue to provide out of the kindness of their hearts, and that we, the people, will take advantage of that, stripping them of a large amount of potential earnings. "No, you don't get to earn a lot. You will serve us out of the kindness of your hearts."

Well.

[D'rok]

It's interesting. Although it's difficult to pay for rapidly advancing tech, people getting it through the magic of forcing doctors to give it for low cost is the essence of mooching.

Actually, it's the opposite. A mooch just begs. He doesn't threaten jail.

Here, kind doctors. You produce wonders. I cannot pay for it. You shall therefore charge less, or I shall put you in jail.

WTF!

And one expects doctors to continue producing them at the same rate? Because some charismatic politician can play a successful whiney-whine game with the voting populace?

You have a bizarre conception of what public medicare is. Nobody in my country is putting a gun to doctors' heads and forcing them to give up their expertise at low cost on pain of incarceration.

Listen, medical professionals bill the government for the services provided to the consumer. The cost is low for the consumer. The medical professionals still get paid very, very well.

The low cost of the Canadian system at the point of delivery is not borne on the backs of doctors, but taxpayers. And we are willing to collectively bear that cost.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Hell, if anything universal health care seems more justifiable than police, since with health care you don't need to worry about protecting the rights of criminals.

Well "universal health care" is a fabrication. It is a wonderful phrase that means absolutely nothing.

For a start - what becomes of health care workers rights to be able to work for the highest bidder? What about the rights of insurance companies to be able to conduct their business based on the mathematical models of the profession? Who, in a "universal" system, decides which procedures may be used? Who decides whether the cost to the system is more important than the immediate survival of just one member? What surgical and medical breakthroughs have the "universal" systems produced?

[D'rok]

But I find it disturbing in the extreme to think well of the sentiment that, well, doctors will continue to provide out of the kindness of their hearts, and that we, the people, will take advantage of that, stripping them of a large amount of potential earnings. "No, you don't get to earn a lot. You will serve us out of the kindness of your hearts."

Well.

And so you should find this disturbing in the extreme. Fortunately, I can set your mind at ease (see my post above). This disturbing scenario exists only in your head. In the real world of public health care, doctors are very, very well paid. (At least in "free" countries - I'm not talking about Cuba etc.). I have a filthy rich Dr. sister-in-law who could attest to that.

[Dorian Gray]

I don't see what's wrong with universal health care. I already pay a fee to cover people who don't have car insurance. And I already subsidize people who get sick a lot, or who need long-term care of any sort. And if you pay premiums, you do exactly the same thing.

So what exactly is the objection to universal health care?

My taxes go to pay health care for retired individuals and the elderly (Medicaid/Medicare) already, so why not just extend what is already in place to cover the 40 million people who are uninsured.

Also, what is your take on children? Why should they suffer through sickness? How about coverage for them? I'm willing to pay a little so babies don't have to be sick most of their lives. It's hilarious that wealthy people donate lots of money to charity but balk at paying a little extra so people can have health care. Anyone who does that must only be donating money for the tax write-off.

And libertarians are getting on my nerves. Tell me this: why is it that libertarians are overwhelmingly in countries that protect their positions with laws that run counter to their philosophies?

It's fun to tweak libertarians with the following: Do you have a sidewalk in front of your house? Guess what? That's eminent domain at work! The government has seized part of your land to put that sidewalk there! HA HA HA!

[MortFurd]

Well "universal health care" is a fabrication. It is a wonderful phrase that means absolutely nothing.

For a start - what becomes of health care workers rights to be able to work for the highest bidder? What about the rights of insurance companies to be able to conduct their business based on the mathematical models of the profession? Who, in a "universal" system, decides which procedures may be used? Who decides whether the cost to the system is more important than the immediate survival of just one member? What surgical and medical breakthroughs have the "universal" systems produced?
The government and the insurance agencies. When law requires mandatory coverage and universal care, it ends up having to specify what is allowed.

Who the F wants a politician passing judgement on medical matters?

Take a look at the UK and homeopathy. Sorry, if you're going to take my money for medical care do me a favor and don't piss it off on water and sugar pills.

[MortFurd]

And so you should find this disturbing in the extreme. Fortunately, I can set your mind at ease (see my post above). This disturbing scenario exists only in your head. In the real world of public health care, doctors are very, very well paid. (At least in "free" countries - I'm not talking about Cuba etc.). I have a filthy rich Dr. sister-in-law who could attest to that.
Now come take a look at Germany. They are in the same boat. I don't pay my doctor, he bills the insurance agency. Doctors have been doing very well financially for a very long time.

Insurance agencies tightened up the billing requirements, and the fee strcuture changed. Doctors are earning less, so they can't hire as many assistents. Sometimes have to fire them because they can't pay 'em. Now you've got overworked nurses assisting the doctor. That's got to be good for your care. The doctor's earnings are regulated by the good will of the gov and the insurance agencies. That'd make me feel real secure.

A good doctor spends time with his patients and get to know them and their health record. The insurance only allots a small amount for that, so a good doctor gets shafted if he spends more than a few minutes talking to a patient. A bad doctor doesn't care. He'll barely talk to you and charge the full amount allowed.

Universal health care sucks. No health care sucks. There aren't any patent solutions.

[D'rok]

Now come take a look at Germany. They are in the same boat. I don't pay my doctor, he bills the insurance agency. Doctors have been doing very well financially for a very long time.

Insurance agencies tightened up the billing requirements, and the fee strcuture changed. Doctors are earning less, so they can't hire as many assistents. Sometimes have to fire them because they can't pay 'em. Now you've got overworked nurses assisting the doctor. That's got to be good for your care. The doctor's earnings are regulated by the good will of the gov and the insurance agencies. That'd make me feel real secure.

A good doctor spends time with his patients and get to know them and their health record. The insurance only allots a small amount for that, so a good doctor gets shafted if he spends more than a few minutes talking to a patient. A bad doctor doesn't care. He'll barely talk to you and charge the full amount allowed.

Universal health care sucks. No health care sucks. There aren't any patent solutions.


I agree that there is no panacea. It's a question of what sucks less. For my money, it's still public health care - warts and all - that sucks less.

[Earthborn]

You're in favor of progressive redistribution in terms of paying for health care, right?I'm in favour of offering people medical treatment based on medical need, and I am in favour of having everyone pay a fair share to pay for those medical treatments. To me a fair share obviously means that it will depend somewhat on the ability to pay.

Do you not consider that mooching?If everyone has to pay, no one can mooch. A poor person may have to pay less than a richer person, but if s/he stays healthy s/he is still paying more into the system than is taking out. That's not mooching, that's contributing. One can only be a mooch by not contributing to the system while still taking money out of it.

So I don't quite understand. Are you against laws requiring emergency rooms to provide free care?Such laws are only meaningful in a situation where not everyone is insured and uninsured people may be unable to directly pay. I am in favour of having everyone insured, which means that emergency rooms do not need to provide free care; their pay is guaranteed. All they have to do is send the bill to the insurance company/government/however it is organised.

[Earthborn]

Well "universal health care" is a fabrication. It is a wonderful phrase that means absolutely nothing.I think its meaning is perfectly clear. It is healthcare that is universal; it includes everybody. Everybody is covered, everybody pays in. It means nothing more and nothing less.

For a start - what becomes of health care workers rights to be able to work for the highest bidder? What about the rights of insurance companies to be able to conduct their business based on the mathematical models of the profession? Who, in a "universal" system, decides which procedures may be used? Who decides whether the cost to the system is more important than the immediate survival of just one member? What surgical and medical breakthroughs have the "universal" systems produced?All depends on how it is organised, and many different countries with universal healthcare systems have come up with vastly different solutions. They all seem to work reasonably well, though every solution may have its own problems. The only constant among universal healthcare systems is: everybody is covered, everybody pays in. The United States could have a universal system without changing any of the present solutions to the problems you raise.

[Admiral]

And libertarians are getting on my nerves. Tell me this: why is it that libertarians are overwhelmingly in countries that protect their positions with laws that run counter to their philosophies?

I'll address the other comments on this thread later, but for now, I really want to know what this means.

"Protect their positions with laws that run counter to their philosophies..." What laws "protect my position" that I'm against? Do you think I'm against free speech? I honestly don't understand.

[Tricky]

All questions of what should people "mooch" on the government can be addressed with a simple test. The test question is, "Would having the country administer this be beneficial for the country?" Oddly, few people question the need for the country to support the military, keeping roads open, making sure people have electrical power, protecting National Parks and such.

What I can't figure out is why so many people think it is not in the national interest to have a healthy populace. If you consider "universal" health care part of our country's infrastructure, then you needn't worry about if it benefits you personally, but whether it benefits the country as a whole.

I don't go to Voyageurs National Park (http://www.nps.gov/voya/). Why the hell should I have to pay taxes so other people can go?

[Katana]

And so you should find this disturbing in the extreme. Fortunately, I can set your mind at ease (see my post above). This disturbing scenario exists only in your head. In the real world of public health care, doctors are very, very well paid. (At least in "free" countries - I'm not talking about Cuba etc.). I have a filthy rich Dr. sister-in-law who could attest to that.


Where does she live? What kind of doc is she?

What do you consider "filthy rich"?

Just curious.

[Earthborn]

Require people to have insurance coverage? And why is this done? To protect hospitals from unpaid expenses when they are themselves required to service people whether they can pay or not.

It's stacking a problem on top of a problem.Hardly. If everyone is covered, hospitals would not have unpaid expenses, since those expenses are covered and they would not need to worry about servicing people who cannot pay, because they know the expenses will be paid. Just not by the people they service.

I would argue this is fraud on the part of insurance companies, even if they hide it deep in the fine print. You can't call yourself insurance if you throw people out, or jack up the rates astronomically if they make a large claim or suddenly need catastrophic or long-term care.According to boooeee (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2721449&postcount=117) it is the only way "an individual health insurance market can function when people are allowed to opt out of coverage". The obvious solution: don't allow people to opt out.

Here's the problem: Everybody wants the best coverage.

Here's another problem: It's expensive to have the bleeding edge technology.

Here's a third problem: If you don't pay for it somehow, it disappears.Here's a crazy idea: divide the costs over a large number of people through mandatory insurance. That way you don't need to point a gun at doctors and pay them less.

It's simple, people. Run two parallel worlds. One advancing tech at a rate of x. The other a kind, socialist world at a rate of 0.8x.

After one century, the socialist world has 0.8x the tech of the non-kind world. Had this been done in 1900, you'd now have about 1987 medical tech instead of 2007 tech.A 0.2 difference per 100 years between a capitalist and a socialist world? I think you are getting mild. With this rate of increase in mildness towards socialism, you'll be singing "The Internationale" next month.

Anyone want free medical 1987 tech, or greedy 2007 tech?Anyone want free medical 1987 tech (which wasn't particularly bad by today's standards) and greedy 2007 tech bankruptcy?

[Schneibster]

No, liberals pay taxes. Some pay a lot. Please don't put words in my mouth.

However, they're also (in general) in favor of redistribution and progressive taxation- in other words, giving people things that other (generally rich) people paid for.Here is a fact: when someone takes some of my income and provides me a good or service, that is redistribution of wealth. By and large, in case you hadn't noticed, that redistribution favors the rich- that is, my income is naturally redistributed to the rich by the current system. What this amounts to is that rich people are taxing me. I have to pay them a profit to get healthcare, to be insured so that the healthcare won't break me financially, to have clothes to wear, to have a house to live in, to get food to eat, ...

This tax is called "profit." It is the money that rich people charge me for using "their" money. They get to charge it because they have some and I don't, a state of affairs that this "profit" tax aims to not merely perpetuate, but increase the degree of. They keep getting in my face and arguing how they're somehow "entitled" to this tax, but when the discussion turns to paying for roads over which the goods get carried so they can make their "profit" tax, or paying for the health of workers that gets ruined so they can make their "profit" tax, or paying for the forest that gets cut down so they can make their "profit" tax, that's always "unfair." I see it as mooching, myself: using the property of all of us to make a profit for a few. Those few don't want to pay for the property they use; that's quite natural, but stop trying to convince me it's "fair." Personally, I think that because they use more of that infrastructure taking their "profit" tax from me, they should pay for that use. I think that's fair, don't you? If not, why not? And who should pay for it? Me? Sorry, I've got no money- the rich people took it all to make a "profit."

Profit is not free. My main fight with Libertarians is that they fight, squirm, whine, ignore, twist, mewl, and scratch and bite not to have to acknowledge that fact. Profit is a zero-sum game; someone makes a profit, and someone else gives it to them. When my neighbor makes a profit from me for providing me with lunch, then I have no problem with it, because I ate the lunch, and (unless they fed me tainted meat) it was what I paid for; but when the billionaire living up on the hill makes a profit from me by charging me for health "insurance" that I can't afford not to buy, then refuses to pay for my health care so he can make a "profit," I'm sorry, but I can't help feeling I didn't get what I paid for; and that makes it not "profit," but "theft."

So my choices are to pay and get what I paid for, or pay and not get what I paid for and have someone try to tell me that's OK because they made a "profit." Sorry, I don't see it that way. Because, you see, if they did pay for what they said they were going to while they were taking my money, they'd still make a "profit;" just not quite as much of one. So given reality, it seems I would be better off if I had the government do it; at least if we say, "everybody gets taken care of," I won't get ripped off like I am now.

You seem to have a belief that since everyone (give or take) pays taxes, and everyone gets government services, "everything evens out." You don't see why that's an odd attitude? Hey, if everything "evens out," then why even HAVE the whole taxation system?Because I'd rather get something than nothing, since I'm going to pay one way or the other.

YOU seem to have a belief that just because someone pays for something. they get it; my experience is, they take your money and then try to find an excuse NOT to do what you paid for.

That's where Libertarianism fails when it meets the real world. See, if it's my lunch, then maybe I go hungry; but bet your ass I'll go to someone else for lunch the next time. The market has spoken. But if a company takes my money for ten years, and refuses to pay for my medical care, I'm bankrupt or dead; either way, they've got my money and I can't do anything about it. And what you're failing to understand is that they've done it enough times that people are looking for another lunch counter. The market is attempting to speak; you are ignoring it and pretending it's not "really" the market.

Here's my point. I'm not one of those people who thinks that welfare is evil. I'm also not a tax protestor- I don't try to find ways of reducing the taxes I pay. But I do think that welfare and other redistribution systems are the definition of mooching. We can argue whether they're good or not, of course, that's a seperate issue- but it's odd to deny that redistribution IS mooching.I think rich people charging me to "use" "their" money, and then not rendering the service I paid for, is theft. I don't see where there's much of an argument about whether that's a good thing or not. And I think it's quite odd that you should deny it happens, when newspaper articles are printed about it every day.

If the rich people would pay when I get sick like they said they would, I wouldn't be looking for another way to get the bread sliced; I'm lazy. But they don't. So I'm looking. Simple as that.

[D'rok]

Where does she live?
Alberta
What kind of doc is she?Family medicine. She consciously chose this knowing that it was the least lucrative path.

What do you consider "filthy rich"?Multiple six-figure salary. Bill Gates level wealth is what I consider "obscenely rich".

[Corsair 115]

I'm suprised that the "taxes will have to be very high like in Canada to pay for a national health care system" argument hasn't come to the fore yet. It'll be fun to knock down that argument when it comes up. :D