August 4, 2011 at 8:51 am
This micro-management of people's lives is illustrative of the socialist (aka liberal) mindset. They are just not happy unless they are monitoring and/or controlling every single decision a person might make. They seem to obsess over the thought that someone may actually prefer something different than they do, or that one person might have different values and goals in life.
I consider myself what you'd call a liberal and I don't want to micromanage anyone's life. I don't see how providing universal health care makes people less free. You can contract without worrying about paying for health care. Start a business and not worry about what happens if you fall ill. It's extra freedom as far as I'm concerned. Providing a safety net for people increases people's freedom rather then decreases it
I'm also very liberal when it comes to the law. I think we should increase people's freedom by legalising drugs, allowing gay people to get married, all that stuff. However people want to live is fine by me.
I would say your libertarian mindset implies that you believe you have far more control over your life then you really have, and don't understand that you could lose it all in an instant if you contracted an illness, got made redundant, or paralysed in a car accident (three extreme examples, but you know, shit happens.)
I'm prepared to pay a higher tax rate for universal health care as I'll probably need it most when I can afford it least.
August 4, 2011 at 8:51 am
I am a firm believer in free enterprise and the economic principle: I did however read past the "invisible hand" principle to also see where the economic principles fail or don't work. And no - the government is NOT just about being a military or policy force: it also provides services for the public good. So we can choose to be those who would let people die on the street because it makes no economic sense to take care of them, or we can choose to figure out the hard questions: what CAN we provide, and what's the fairest way to provide it.
Brilliantly put.
August 4, 2011 at 8:53 am
GSquared (8/4/2011)
When the government mandates that banks must give loans to high-risk home buyers, that's an inappropriate role for government. When the government tells you that you have to use environmentally and personally hazardous light-bulbs, that's an inappropriate role for government. When government protects Wall Street investors from their own avarice and stupidity by giving them guarantees and cash to cover obviously poor investments, that's inappropriate. When government spawns the world's most massive Ponzi scheme and uses it to garner votes, that's inappropriate government. The list goes on. All major political parties, and not just here in the US, are guilty of twisting the role of government to line their own pockets or to abuse power, or worse.
Agree. Those are exceeding the role of government, along with others.
You want an effective bumper against unbridled capitalism? How about the right/ability to boycott companies that don't behave the way you want them to? How about unions to protect their employees against abuses? How about litigation to repair damages from harmful products/services? Do you really think people whose only real expertise is manipulating voters are the best judges and arbiters of, well, anything?
Those are not protections, not when you have massive companies. The ability to boycott companies only works with large amounts of organization, and in some places, it doesn't work. Boycott media? Hard to do. Boycott telcos? Used to be impossible. Used to be, and in many cases is, impossible to even compete with the large ones. Boycott your local hospital because they don't do a good job? Not easy.
Those things can change sometimes, but that takes time, sometimes lots of it, and doesn't necessarily work. Some of it is cultural, with our desires for a service, but some of it does mean that government needs to provide some limits that ensure fairness, not equality, but fairness for competition, and IMHO some limits on the upper size/power of companies. Allowing unfettered growth in media, banking, telecom, healthcare, and other places has caused us as many problems as it solved. We could have done with a little less progress in some of those areas to have more companies, and jobs.
On the other hand, we have UPS/FedEx that grew to provide unparalleled delivery service. Course, not sure that was a good thing, either.
August 4, 2011 at 9:00 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
This micro-management of people's lives is illustrative of the socialist (aka liberal) mindset. They are just not happy unless they are monitoring and/or controlling every single decision a person might make. They seem to obsess over the thought that someone may actually prefer something different than they do, or that one person might have different values and goals in life.
I consider myself what you'd call a liberal and I don't want to micromanage anyone's life. I don't see how providing universal health care makes people less free. You can contract without worrying about paying for health care. Start a business and not worry about what happens if you fall ill. It's extra freedom as far as I'm concerned. Providing a safety net for people increases people's freedom rather then decreases it
Do you support an individuals right to elect not to participate in the so called "universal health care"? If you do not than you force everyone to conform to your belief that it is a "good thing". That is managing other people's lives' albeit with supposed good intentions. There is an old saying about various roads leading to certain unhappy destinations being paved with good intentions.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
August 4, 2011 at 9:02 am
I just thought of something. Why do I need insurance in US at all? If I get cancer, I'll just move to England and get free medical. Once I'm healthy again, I'll move back to US.
August 4, 2011 at 9:05 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
I would say your libertarian mindset implies that you believe you have far more control over your life then you really have, and don't understand that you could lose it all in an instant if you contracted an illness, got made redundant, or paralysed in a car accident (three extreme examples, but you know, shit happens.)
But that's my choice to make. I'm smart enough to elect to have insurance but I don't have to if I don't want to. That's what makes me free.
August 4, 2011 at 9:05 am
Do you support an individuals right to elect not to participate in the so called "universal health care"? If you do not than you force everyone to conform to your belief that it is a "good thing". That is managing other people's lives' albeit with supposed good intentions.
I support people's right to vote for the party that wants to take away universal health care, and if society decides that way it would rather not have it, I'd abide by that decision. Democracy, I think it's called.
I would support the party that did offer Universal Health Care, obviously. But I would defend your right to disagree with me and vote against me with the last breath in my body.
August 4, 2011 at 9:08 am
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
I would say your libertarian mindset implies that you believe you have far more control over your life then you really have, and don't understand that you could lose it all in an instant if you contracted an illness, got made redundant, or paralysed in a car accident (three extreme examples, but you know, shit happens.)But that's my choice to make. I'm smart enough to elect to have insurance but I don't have to if I don't want to. That's what makes me free.
Free to choose whilst you have the money. If you lose your job, you're not free to choose until you get another one. And that could be when you fall ill. These things are not always within your control.
August 4, 2011 at 9:08 am
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
I just thought of something. Why do I need insurance in US at all? If I get cancer, I'll just move to England and get free medical. Once I'm healthy again, I'll move back to US.
😀
August 4, 2011 at 9:17 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
I would say your libertarian mindset implies that you believe you have far more control over your life then you really have, and don't understand that you could lose it all in an instant if you contracted an illness, got made redundant, or paralysed in a car accident (three extreme examples, but you know, shit happens.)But that's my choice to make. I'm smart enough to elect to have insurance but I don't have to if I don't want to. That's what makes me free.
Free to choose whilst you have the money. If you lose your job, you're not free to choose until you get another one. And that could be when you fall ill. These things are not always within your control.
But that encourages people to keep working instead of living off the government.
If I get disabled, I can qualify for our Social Security Disability since I have met my minimum of 10 quarters of work. We have plans for people that cannot support themselves too but we pay for that with our own taxes. The amount of Social Security taxes that I pay will determine the extent of the benefits that I get later. The more I earn, the more retirement I will get and the more disability I can receive as well.
August 4, 2011 at 9:18 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Do you support an individuals right to elect not to participate in the so called "universal health care"? If you do not than you force everyone to conform to your belief that it is a "good thing". That is managing other people's lives' albeit with supposed good intentions.
I support people's right to vote for the party that wants to take away universal health care, and if society decides that way it would rather not have it, I'd abide by that decision. Democracy, I think it's called.
I would support the party that did offer Universal Health Care, obviously. But I would defend your right to disagree with me and vote against me with the last breath in my body.
You are speaking of a so called Democracy and its supposed "flexibility" to simply create and destroy massive government programs following every election, depending upon who gets elected. In truth these programs never go away once created. Alexis de Tocqueville comments regarding your contention:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
August 4, 2011 at 9:36 am
sturner (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Do you support an individuals right to elect not to participate in the so called "universal health care"? If you do not than you force everyone to conform to your belief that it is a "good thing". That is managing other people's lives' albeit with supposed good intentions.
I support people's right to vote for the party that wants to take away universal health care, and if society decides that way it would rather not have it, I'd abide by that decision. Democracy, I think it's called.
I would support the party that did offer Universal Health Care, obviously. But I would defend your right to disagree with me and vote against me with the last breath in my body.
You are speaking of a so called Democracy and its supposed "flexibility" to simply create and destroy massive government programs following every election, depending upon who gets elected. In truth these programs never go away once created. Alexis de Tocqueville comments regarding your contention:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville
So what do you propose instead of democracy? The least worst option, as a wise man once put it.
August 4, 2011 at 9:45 am
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
I just found the pay for Doctors in NHS (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553):Doctors in training
In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,412. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £27,798. For a doctor in specialist training the basic starting salary is £29,705.
Specialty doctor and associate specialist (2008) (SAS doctors)
Doctors in the new specialty doctor grade earn between £36,807 and £70,126.
Consultants
Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £74,504 and £100,446 per year, dependent on length of service. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.
You have to be kidding me. The requirements for becoming a doctor in the U.S. vary somewhat by specialty. In general, doctors complete a 4-year undergraduate degree program, spend four years in medical school and then complete 3-7 years of residency training before they are eligible for licensing. (10 - 15 years of training). You think going through that much training is worth the amounts NHS pays? I think not!
In the US, a regular family doctor gets paid on average of $173,000/year (http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Family-Practice-salary.html). If you specialize, the sky is the limit on what you can earn.
First and foremost, I take issue with the assertion that some limitations on what a doctor can make drive many from wanting to be doctors. If you do the math on the education costs of an american family doctor, the age at which they can start earning (post-residency), and the intelligence and work ethic required to become one, I think you'll find that in the US and everywhere else, those people could make a lot more over their lifetime in another field if they worked as hard as they do at medicine, and with substantially less risk and stress. Do doctors want to make more? Yes, everyone does. But whether in a universal health care nation or not, few stand at their life's crossroads and evaluate a potential medical career and say "nope, not enough money".
Also worth noting that those trainee salaries are the equivalent of residency in the US (which pays peanuts and is largely government funded), and based on 40 hour (and business hour) work weeks, ramping up significantly for odd shifts or overtime. So at that stage they compare quite favourably. And worth noting that their medical school costs are lower.
And that in Great Britain and many other places with universal care, doctors can practice privately and patients can seek private care if they have the money and wish to.
August 4, 2011 at 9:48 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
sturner (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Do you support an individuals right to elect not to participate in the so called "universal health care"? If you do not than you force everyone to conform to your belief that it is a "good thing". That is managing other people's lives' albeit with supposed good intentions.
I support people's right to vote for the party that wants to take away universal health care, and if society decides that way it would rather not have it, I'd abide by that decision. Democracy, I think it's called.
I would support the party that did offer Universal Health Care, obviously. But I would defend your right to disagree with me and vote against me with the last breath in my body.
You are speaking of a so called Democracy and its supposed "flexibility" to simply create and destroy massive government programs following every election, depending upon who gets elected. In truth these programs never go away once created. Alexis de Tocqueville comments regarding your contention:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville
So what do you propose instead of democracy? The least worst option, as a wise man once put it.
The form of government created by the founders of the United States and defined by its Constitution is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. The founders were all too aware of the pitfalls of Democracy as stated by deToqueville.
The US Constitution is pretty much ignore today and the Democracy has taken its place sadly. Now you see the US in a debt situation it will never get out of thanks to 'Democratic" ideas.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
August 4, 2011 at 9:49 am
Free to choose whilst you have the money. If you lose your job, you're not free to choose until you get another one. And that could be when you fall ill. These things are not always within your control.
But that encourages people to keep working instead of living off the government.
[/quote]
Lots of things encourage people to work, rent, food bills, the desire for an xbox. We have universal health care, and yet most people work. I've not been unemployed in about 18, 19 years. But I was unemployed for about 3 years at the beginning of my career in the last recession, along with about 3 million other people. Couldn't get a job without experience, couldn't get experience without a job. If I'd have fallen ill in that time without insurance in the states I'd have been screwed. Here I had an operation on my knee and was able to resume my search for work without a disability within a couple of weeks. My first job was in a bar, which I wouldn't have been able to do had I not had that operation. The state paying for my op benefited them, long term.
If I get disabled, I can qualify for our Social Security Disability since I have met my minimum of 10 quarters of work. We have plans for people that cannot support themselves too but we pay for that with our own taxes. The amount of Social Security taxes that I pay will determine the extent of the benefits that I get later. The more I earn, the more retirement I will get and the more disability I can receive as well.
That, to me, is socialism, and I'm all for it. I don't see a problem with people getting higher benefit if they've put in more. We don't get a higher pension from the Government if we earn more here. We have to put extra into a private pension. I don't see anything wrong with either system, to be honest.
I can't see the difference between that and providing universal health care, though (other countries provide it through an insurance based system where the unemployed get free insurance and it works well. It would be very expensive for us to change to that, though, but seems to be what Obama is aiming to do over there. I like Obama.)
I wouldn't want the government interfering in every aspect of my life any more then you would, but I feel health is one area where the market doesn't know best and where more people get better care through Government intervention. It doesn't work along normal economic principles, as someone pointed out earlier.
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 238 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply