• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
But if there was a single payer system you would have no choice. :mgbanghead
Click to expand...
The only thing this posts demonstrates is that you have no idea what a single payer system is. Oh, and that you know how to use stupid smilies.

A health care consumer under a single payer system does NOT have his or her choices constrained to one provider.

Now that you have absorbed that fact (you have, yes?) please, for the second time, answer my question.
 
SezMe said:
The only thing this posts demonstrates is that you have no idea what a single payer system is. Oh, and that you know how to use stupid smilies.

A health care consumer under a single payer system does NOT have his or her choices constrained to one provider.

Now that you have absorbed that fact (you have, yes?) please, for the second time, answer my question.
Click to expand...
And could you please also answer Rolfe's. And I mean answer the question he posed, don't twist his words around and respond with your own question.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?
Click to expand...

In every second post?

Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.
Click to expand...

Leaving how many dead people behind? Lawyers would be happy but the dead and their relatives would be pretty pissed!
 
Rolfe said:
Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

SezMe said:
Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?
Click to expand...

There, I did extensive thread research taking nearly 30 seconds of my life.

Your turn. Chop, chop. Get to it little man.
 
Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?
Click to expand...

Food is not a luxury. Without food, health-care is not needed. Food is essential to life.

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this?
Click to expand...

Very few. This is because the market supplies the needs of each individual and society as a whole better than government.

And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials?
Click to expand...

Yes. Is a poor argument for government to supply food to all citizens because government supplies food to few citizens.


So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand your thoughts here. Government should not provide food because the people need approximately the same amount and quality of food, and government should provide health-care because people have different needs for health-care.

I am not sure I understand your logic.


Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?
Click to expand...

I would have accident insurance in the same way I have life insurance.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Food is not a luxury. Without food, health-care is not needed. Food is essential to life.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh, you did it again. What she actually said was that food ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL of necessity is luxury. But you turned it around to have it appear that she said all food is luxury. Do you understand why this is a dishonest debate tactic?
 
Fitter said:
Uh-oh, you did it again. What she actually said was that food ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL of necessity is luxury. But you turned it around to have it appear that she said all food is luxury. Do you understand why this is a dishonest debate tactic?
Click to expand...

Than why is government not providing the BASIC level of food to all the people?
 
Last edited:
There is a direction to read something that has already been posted in this thread. Do you really need someone to hold your hand as you cross the street?
 
After the Gnome wilfully misinterpreted my first go at that argument ("Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right"), I had another go. He also said I was swallowing propaganda. which is what the latter part of the post is about, I notice he hasn't addressed that either.

Rolfe said:
Can you spell "reductio ad absurdum", sweetheart?

I said that people's needs for food are all roughly similar, and that almost everybody is able to afford this basic diet. Beyond that is the luxury market. Nobody needs caviare, pate de foie gras and vintage champagne. I also pointed out that your government does provide for the few people who are unable to afford their basic dietary requirements.

I also said that people's healthcare needs are nowhere near roughly similar, leading to the inescapable fact that those whose needs are greater are frequently unable to afford these essentials. The only healthcare you don't need is your face lift.

I then asked you to explain why you thought these two situations were even remotely comparable.

Care to try again?

By the way, what propaganda? I have my healthcare requirements met free at the point of need, I perceive my tax bill to be quite reasonable, indeed modest, and I have no need to worry that any medical condition developed by me, my family or my neighbours will drive any of us into bankruptcy. That's not propaganda, sunshine, that's fact.
Click to expand...


Why is the government not supplying a basic level of food to all people? Lots of reasons. First, people don't eat a basic diet, then top up on pate de foie gras. They choose a luxury-quality diet over a basic-quality diet if they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap bread and dripping and spam to the middle-classes would be a waste. Second, you could argue that in a sense they are, by allowing an initial percentage of income tax-free to everyone, no matter how rich. This is to ensure that everyone had funds to purchase such basic necessities. Third, there's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going hungry because of an inability to access a basic diet. (Possibly partly because of tax laws.) And because of that there is no demand.

In contrast, as I said, healthcare need vary wildly from person to person, so that for a significant number of people the cost of meeting their needs is more than they can afford.

This is a hugely different situation from food supply. I asked you why you thought the two situations were at all comparable, and you haven't even tried to answer, just come back with more inane questions.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Why is the government not supplying a basic level of food to all people? Lots of reasons. First, people don't eat a basic diet, then top up on pate de foie gras. They choose a luxury-quality diet over a basic-quality diet if they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap bread and dripping and spam to the middle-classes would be a waste. Second, you could argue that in a sense they are, by allowing an initial percentage of income tax-free to everyone, no matter how rich. This is to ensure that everyone had funds to purchase such basic necessities. Third, there's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going hungry because of an inability to access a basic diet. (Possibly partly because of tax laws.) And because of that there is no demand.
Click to expand...

Why is the government not supplying a basic level of health-care to all people? People don't consume basic health-care, then get a heart transplant. They choose a luxury health-care procedure because they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap substandard health-care to the middle-classes would be a waste. There's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going without health-care because of an inability to access basic health-care.

Can you not see it is the same argument?

In contrast, as I said, healthcare need vary wildly from person to person, so that for a significant number of people the cost of meeting their needs is more than they can afford.
Click to expand...

Actually, I said people have different health-care needs.


Do you really believe that all health-care is needed? You argument stands on the idea that there is no luxury health-care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom