August 4, 2011 at 9:51 am
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
August 4, 2011 at 9:59 am
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.
I thought you didn't like socialism.
You're talking about a government administered program, where the amount you pay and the amount of benefit you receive are dictated to you by the government. You can't go out and select your level of coverage or look to a competing provider, and you pay for it whether you want it or not.
So it ought to be asked, do you think social security (and while we're at it, medicare, medicaid, etc) ought to be abolished? Do you think doctors ought to be able to refuse to help patients they know can't pay (instead of how things work now)? Those are all socialism in varying degrees as well.
August 4, 2011 at 10:14 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Hard to say for definite, but it sounds like I'm paying about the same as someone in the states for my health care, and I'm covered if something were to happen to me if I lost my job and can't afford to pay anymore. I definitely prefer our system.What do people do over there if they're out of work and throw their back out, or develop a serious illness? What happens if you have to leave your job because you fall ill?
Generally, if you have to leave a job because of illness/injury, long-term disability insurance covers you on that. You can actually end up with a better income:work ratio that way than most full-time employees, but that's what you pay into the insurance for when you are working.
People without work have different resources they can call upon for medical coverage. There are charity hospitals, for one thing, which operate on voluntary donations, and which are usually free to those without the ability to pay. Many people without work have various insurance programs, including Medicare/Medicaid, COBRA, and others, available to them. For example, I got free-to-me medical treatment and testing for severe hypoglycemia, from a community/charity hospital, in 1996, because I was working for room-and-board and only earning $50/week cash income. The testing included MRI, bloodwork, analysis by a variety of endochynologists and neurologists, and the treatment included consultations with the same and a couple of dieticians. No cost to me. All covered by local charities.
Most of what won't be covered in the US is voluntary procedures and products. Part of the problem is the definition of "voluntary" vs "necessary". Insurance companies want anything non-life-threatening to be "voluntary", while their insured customers want everything including treatment for hangnails and acne to be "necessary", and both are looking out for their own best interest by doing that. Nothing wrong with either, since they end up having to compromise to stay in business.
Outside of that, the main people who really don't have coverage are the homeless indigent. They have no coverage at all, other than what they can get at charity clinics. That can be very limited. A significant portion of that population, in the US, is people released from "mental health facilities" because their insurance ran out. They are most commonly addicted to one or more of the drugs used in their prior treatment, and are usually socially non-functional and incapable of productive work. Government really can't do anything effective to help them, but is often involved in various ways in creating more of them.
(Honestly, I don't see how anyone can possibly conclude a government capable of "Operation Fast and Furious" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or "Operation Oval Office BJs" or "Iran Contra", can possibly be trusted with anything at all, much less managing a nationwide health insurance company. And for the non-Americans in the crowd here, please don't feel that your country has been spared government stupidity just because I didn't include it in that list. You know very well what complete idiots can be elected to public office where you live.)
One important point to keep in mind is that most Americans are extremely rich compared to most of the population of this planet, and have access to facilities, health and otherwise, that the majority of humanity can barely dream of, much less take advantage of, but that, at the same time, most Americans think that other people are exploiting them in unfair ways, and want more than they already have. Our current "poverty level" includes 1 car, 2 TVs, and a house, for the majority of those who are "poor" in the US. It includes meals out periodically, and the ocassional movie or night at a dance club. Those are the most recent data from our government statistics, including census data. (In other words, it's not from Fox "News".)
To me, there are MUCH more imporant issues in the world than American health insurance details.
We worry about our national debt and about its effects on our retirement funds, while whole swaths of humanity die of hunger, preventable diseases, or at the whims of tyrants. We spend billions on benefits for teachers unions, while billions of people never even get a chance to learn to read. We spend money on "news" about meaningless celebrity sex scandals, while people die horribly for lack of potable water. We invest billions into trying to help our children have "better self-esteem", while millions of people are living as slaves.
The solutions to those things do NOT involve dragging us down because we're doing well. They involve a lot of work and a lot of planning and a lot of teaching and a lot of money and resources, to lift others up. Honestly, that's where my attention is. Not on "could Americans have better healthcare if they let politicians control it", but on real issues that involve solving real human misery.
Sorry if I rubbed anyone's nose in anything they'd rather not confront. I'm just so tired of the passion I see being displayed on issues that are, honestly, trivial. Like who pays for whose insurance.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 10:16 am
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
So it ought to be asked, do you think social security (and while we're at it, medicare, medicaid, etc) ought to be abolished? Do you think doctors ought to be able to refuse to help patients they know can't pay (instead of how things work now)? Those are all socialism in varying degrees as well.
I don't think these ought to be abolished for the simple reason that we will end up looking more like Calcutta than New York.
The government ought to exist in some sense as a last resort for socialism to a small degree. Otherwise we create a society that will be haves and have-nots, not necessarily because of effort or desire, but because most people will not save for the future, or plan well. It has nothing to do with education, desire, or anything else. It's a human failing.
I don't know what the best solution is for social security or health case, but we should require something to exist. Not necessarily the current US law (don't know enough about it), but some backstop that prevents us from sliding into a highly separated society. Perhaps we ought to require retirement contributions, but have any plan meeting basic requirements allowed. Perhaps we ought to require (both sides) to allow/have insurance, and let people pick their level of cost/benefits, but require some basics.
We cannot allow the health care system to exist completely unfettered. Doctors should not have to decide if they treat someone or let them die on the table. Ambulance drivers shouldn't start asking citizens or police for an insurance card before they roll. We shouldn't sneer at tens of millions of senior citizens who can't afford rent, food, or health care because they didn't save 20 years ago. We have to allow some compassion and humanity into the system somehow.
I don't know how we do that in the US, but I don't think it's more socialistic, ala Canada/UK/France/etc, nor do I think it's completely capitalistic.
August 4, 2011 at 10:17 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
Its a shell game of theoretical terms with little practical difference.
A representative republic is also sometimes referred to as a representative democracy. It means that the citizens choose representatives who make the decisions and govern for the good of the people.
The contrast is with direct democracy where the people have the power to make the decisions directly (or at a minimum the representatives are more direct proxies for the will of the people).
As I say, mostly a theoretical difference. There hasn't been a real direct democracy in hundreds of years, because aside from the problems cited, it also doesn't scale particularly well, as you can imagine. Thus nations with elected governments these days are mostly representative.
August 4, 2011 at 10:20 am
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
Its a shell game of theoretical terms with little practical difference.
A representative republic is also sometimes referred to as a representative democracy. It means that the citizens choose representatives who make the decisions and govern for the good of the people.
The contrast is with direct democracy where the people have the power to make the decisions directly (or at a minimum the representatives are more direct proxies for the will of the people).
As I say, mostly a theoretical difference. There hasn't been a real direct democracy in hundreds of years, because aside from the problems cited, it also doesn't scale particularly well, as you can imagine. Thus nations with elected governments these days are mostly representative.
I'd argue there's never been a "real democracy" larger than a lynch mob.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 10:21 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/4/2011)
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
So it ought to be asked, do you think social security (and while we're at it, medicare, medicaid, etc) ought to be abolished? Do you think doctors ought to be able to refuse to help patients they know can't pay (instead of how things work now)? Those are all socialism in varying degrees as well.I don't think these ought to be abolished for the simple reason that we will end up looking more like Calcutta than New York.
The government ought to exist in some sense as a last resort for socialism to a small degree. Otherwise we create a society that will be haves and have-nots, not necessarily because of effort or desire, but because most people will not save for the future, or plan well. It has nothing to do with education, desire, or anything else. It's a human failing.
I don't know what the best solution is for social security or health case, but we should require something to exist. Not necessarily the current US law (don't know enough about it), but some backstop that prevents us from sliding into a highly separated society. Perhaps we ought to require retirement contributions, but have any plan meeting basic requirements allowed. Perhaps we ought to require (both sides) to allow/have insurance, and let people pick their level of cost/benefits, but require some basics.
We cannot allow the health care system to exist completely unfettered. Doctors should not have to decide if they treat someone or let them die on the table. Ambulance drivers shouldn't start asking citizens or police for an insurance card before they roll. We shouldn't sneer at tens of millions of senior citizens who can't afford rent, food, or health care because they didn't save 20 years ago. We have to allow some compassion and humanity into the system somehow.
I don't know how we do that in the US, but I don't think it's more socialistic, ala Canada/UK/France/etc, nor do I think it's completely capitalistic.
Exactly. It is important to recognize this though, in order to move the debate past labels and ideology (socialism as a scary word), and into a practical discussion of what makes sense. You are already socialist, and most americans would not want to abandon all of it, so its merely a matter of where the balance ought to be struck ( a more nuanced concept).
Its like the whole 'whore' joke: "Would you sleep with X for 10 million dollars? Ok, so we've established what you are, we're merely arguing about price".
August 4, 2011 at 10:22 am
GSquared (8/4/2011)
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
Its a shell game of theoretical terms with little practical difference.
A representative republic is also sometimes referred to as a representative democracy. It means that the citizens choose representatives who make the decisions and govern for the good of the people.
The contrast is with direct democracy where the people have the power to make the decisions directly (or at a minimum the representatives are more direct proxies for the will of the people).
As I say, mostly a theoretical difference. There hasn't been a real direct democracy in hundreds of years, because aside from the problems cited, it also doesn't scale particularly well, as you can imagine. Thus nations with elected governments these days are mostly representative.
I'd argue there's never been a "real democracy" larger than a lynch mob.
Which is why its such a useless argument, and why most people outside of political theorists use democracy and representative republic interchangeably.
August 4, 2011 at 10:24 am
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
GSquared (8/4/2011)
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
Its a shell game of theoretical terms with little practical difference.
A representative republic is also sometimes referred to as a representative democracy. It means that the citizens choose representatives who make the decisions and govern for the good of the people.
The contrast is with direct democracy where the people have the power to make the decisions directly (or at a minimum the representatives are more direct proxies for the will of the people).
As I say, mostly a theoretical difference. There hasn't been a real direct democracy in hundreds of years, because aside from the problems cited, it also doesn't scale particularly well, as you can imagine. Thus nations with elected governments these days are mostly representative.
I'd argue there's never been a "real democracy" larger than a lynch mob.
Which is why its such a useless argument, and why most people outside of political theorists use democracy and representative republic interchangeably.
Yep.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 11:02 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
You lack education sir, so I suggest you do the research yourself. It would take too long and too much bandwidth here on this forum.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
August 4, 2011 at 11:19 am
sturner (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
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.
What's the difference? I've not herd the expression representative republic before, but it sounds like Democracy to me.
You lack education sir, so I suggest you do the research yourself. It would take too long and too much bandwidth here on this forum.
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
August 4, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Nevyn (8/4/2011)
I thought you didn't like socialism.You're talking about a government administered program, where the amount you pay and the amount of benefit you receive are dictated to you by the government. You can't go out and select your level of coverage or look to a competing provider, and you pay for it whether you want it or not.
So it ought to be asked, do you think social security (and while we're at it, medicare, medicaid, etc) ought to be abolished? Do you think doctors ought to be able to refuse to help patients they know can't pay (instead of how things work now)? Those are all socialism in varying degrees as well.
I have choices I can make in life and not pay into the Social Security system. For example, I could work for the railroad and none of my money would go to Social Security. I could also become part of our congress and not pay into the system either.
And, to make it clear, I am a libertarian, but we do not have a libertarian government in the US. I want one but don't have one. That doesn't make me like our Social Security plan. In fact, I don't like it so much that I contribute to my employer's 401K and also invest outside of my company. I do this to make sure I have enough to retire on when it comes time that I can no longer work. I cannot be guaranteed that our Social Security will have enough funds by the time I can retire.
August 4, 2011 at 2:24 pm
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
And, to make it clear, I am a libertarian, but we do not have a libertarian government in the US. I want one but don't have one.
Woo-hoo! Another one. I vote Libertarian as well
August 5, 2011 at 1:04 am
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.
The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
August 5, 2011 at 6:46 am
Freddie-304292 (8/5/2011)
I really don't see what this argument has to do with freedom. The government builds your roads, your railways, maintains your public parks. It provides many services for your tax dollars and that doesn't male you less free.The arguments for and against should be about practicality and fairness imho.
You live in a country where you can't drink until you're 21. I had to show Id to buy a beer last time I was over there and I'm 40. A man cam die for his country but not buy a beer? Not tell hid colleagues if he's gay. can't marry if he's gay. How is that freedom?
Paying the government for your healthcare rather then an insurance company that will do everything it can to avoid paying out should you fall ill does not make you free. Not being able to get insured because you have a pre existing condition does not make you free.
I'm free to fall ill whatever my current financial services and my college had a bar. That's freedom.
It's not about freedom for me. It's about trust.
Yes, we live in a regulated society, and some/many/most of those regulations are pure BS.
But how can I trust the government to manage my insurance for me? How can I trust them to manage my finances (social security) for me? They can't manage their own finances worth spit, why should I trust them to manage mine?
If the average elected official were to take on a job as an accountant, all of his clients would be broke and he'd be rich.
Not freedom. Trust and confidence.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 238 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply