• 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.

Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

Rolfe said:
...snip... Rich people think they're some sort of bloody saint if they make a big, flashy donation, get their name engraved on the neonatal cot or whatever it is, but in fact the amount of the donation still might be less than they'd have paid on their large income if it had been taxed.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Also they will impose conditions on how their money is to spent, Maternity wing provided by a rich and devout Catholic? Well forget single mothers having access to it!
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
<snip>

Does it completely escape you that some people may not want anything to do with others?
Click to expand...

No, but it seems to escape you that letting everyone do exactly as they want has never worked in the past, does not work now and will not work in the future, even if you close your eyes tightly and wish really, really hard that it can.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Yes, and the only reason these numbers are different is because those babies didn't have insurance. I think you DO need to go calm down. Maybe not sit by your computer everyday and wait for someone to argue about UHC with.
Click to expand...


Dan, as I said, I don't have the data to know why these numbers are different. I'm just shocked that in the biggest and best superpower in the world, the place very rich people go to for treatment (which you think proves that it has the best healthcare in the world), one more child is dying for every 730 births than in my own country, whose system you so despise.

I also observe that this is likely to be an underestimate of the problem in many areas. You see, in Britain everybody is entitled to the standard of care they need. Mark, and Abigail, both came from fairly well off middle-class families. But we can use them as examples, because we know that the system doesn't discriminate against the children of the unemployed, or those on the minimum wage. Thus we know that our neonatal mortality is relatively even across the social classes and geographical areas, and probably absolutely even if you can correct for non-medical factors such as maternal smoking and drinking.

However, I suspect I'd be right if I assumed that the neonatal death rate in the USA is no worse than in Britain, and possibly even better, if you only look at the children of the middle classes and the affluent. I'd be astonished if this were not the case. Thus this one extra death per 730 live births overall, will be happening in the poorer communities. Depending on how the demographic is split, it might even be as much as one extra dead baby per 500 births, or even fewer, on the wrong side of the tracks.

I can't say whether or not this has anything to do with insurance cover. What do you think?

Rolfe.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
No, but it seems to escape you that letting everyone do exactly as they want has never worked in the past, does not work now and will not work in the future, even if you close your eyes tightly and wish really, really hard that it can.
Click to expand...


You know what? I used to think the way Dan does, when I was about 16. But I thought my ideas through to their logical conclusions. I also looked around me and saw how things actually worked, and observed that there were often consequences I hadn't foreseen, but which with hindsight were predictable.

Why should I be forced to obey my parents, pay my taxes, go to school, drive on the left side of the road, wear a seat belt and so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be FREEEEEEE! I even at one point speculated that it might be better to be in jail because absolute compulsion might feel paradoxically freer than social pressures.

I was an idiot.

As I said, I thought things through, and more importantly I observed how things actually worked. And I changed my mind about a lot of things.

Dan isn't 16.

Now I'm not hanging around this thread because I want to debate universal healthcare, not any more. We've gone into the matter in enough detail that I understand the Americans' objections really and truly are entirely ideological, not practical. I'm hanging around because I find the psychology of the opposing argument fascinating.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Dan, you repeatedly say that you'd "lose" freedom if you were participating in a universal healthcare system.
Click to expand...


DaN K. StAnLeY said:
No, I said I'd be less free than if I could opt-out without being punished. Does it completely escape you that some people may not want anything to do with others?
Click to expand...


All right. This has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of a universal healthcare system.

We've established beyond any dispute that in a universal healthcare system (certainly in Britain) we are not deprived of any freedom at all that US citizens enjoy.

We've also estabilshed beyond any doubt that there are areas in which we enjoy more freedom than US citizens currently enjoy.

(We've also established that we get better health outcomes for a lot less expenditure and stuff like that, which seems not to matter really.)

It seems as if Dan is looking at any change to the current US system primarily from the point of view of whether it will render him (hypothetically) more free than he is at the moment, in just this one tiny little aspect. He wants to be free not to contribute to anybody else's healthcare.

Overall health outcomes don't matter.
Cost to the economy doesn't matter.
All the other lesser freedoms we've discussed that come with participating in a universal system don't matter.

The absolute pre-requisite for any system is that each individual should be free not to contribute in any way to anybody else's healthcare.

And if Dan can't have that, then he won't consider any change at all.

:confused:

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
You know what? I used to think the way Dan does, when I was about 16. But I thought my ideas through to their logical conclusions. I also looked around me and saw how things actually worked, and observed that there were often consequences I hadn't foreseen, but which with hindsight were predictable.

Why should I be forced to obey my parents, pay my taxes, go to school, drive on the left side of the road, wear a seat belt and so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be FREEEEEEE! I even at one point speculated that it might be better to be in jail because absolute compulsion might feel paradoxically freer than social pressures.

I was an idiot.

As I said, I thought things through, and more importantly I observed how things actually worked. And I changed my mind about a lot of things.

Dan isn't 16.

Now I'm not hanging around this thread because I want to debate universal healthcare, not any more. We've gone into the matter in enough detail that I understand the Americans' objections really and truly are entirely ideological, not practical. I'm hanging around because I find the psychology of the opposing argument fascinating.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I think that it's in the American mindset, partly.

There seems to be, and forgive the overarching simplification here as I am fully aware of the variety of opinions in America, an assessment that Socialised Healthcare IS a loss of freedom.

Even if it's pointed out that it would only be an alteration of the system currently in place, there exists some wiggle room for which those against government intervention in all things can insist that there WOULD be an appriciable difference beyond the obvious increase in standards for the lower classes in the US. It seems born to me, and I am aware I am playing armchair sociologist, of two seperate things within the American psyche. The feeling that America IS the best nation of the world that I would consider a form of nationalism, and the paranoid fear of "Communism" brought on by the echos of the Cold War.

The belief in the USA as being a saviour of sorts, and truely having the best of everything in the world really does seem all pervasive to an outsider viewing their media. This frankly child-like notion seems itself to influence the idea that since the US is a Superpower (and best in the world) everything the US does is therefore the best way. Thus Universal healthcare, as practiced by the inferior nations of the world, would not be the right move. It would be to the detriment of the US because the current system is de facto the optimal one.

Secondly, the fact that such a system is Socialised leads to obvious (if false) comparisons with the USSR. The fact that a system with the word "Socialist" in the title, however incorrect this self application was, will lead to immediate suspicion by a number of Americans. This is not entirely without reason of course, given the horrors of the USSR, but since the comparison is not entirely accurate, there is a serious issue here.

Of course, being British and only having temporary, if extended exposure to the US internal systems and civil society I could be entirely wrong, and if shown to be so (with evidence) I will of course retract.
 
Darat said:
I pretty much agree with you, but in my experience ideologues accept these types of extremes in their arguments so I can't see how they can refute the fact that we do have this fundamental choice.
Click to expand...
Busted--you're clearly no better than the terrorists.
 
Rolfe said:
Dan isn't 16.

Now I'm not hanging around this thread because I want to debate universal healthcare, not any more. We've gone into the matter in enough detail that I understand the Americans' objections really and truly are entirely ideological, not practical. I'm hanging around because I find the psychology of the opposing argument fascinating.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna hang around and see if any info emerges about whether or not the Beatles had formed before you stopped being an idiot . . .

Sorry, sorry ;).

Egad, I wonder if I'm about to get reported by two people all at once :blush:
 
MarkCorrigan said:
The belief in the USA as being a saviour of sorts, and truely having the best of everything in the world really does seem all pervasive to an outsider viewing their media. This frankly child-like notion seems itself to influence the idea that since the US is a Superpower (and best in the world) everything the US does is therefore the best way. Thus Universal healthcare, as practiced by the inferior nations of the world, would not be the right move. It would be to the detriment of the US because the current system is de facto the optimal one.
Click to expand...


I think you've essentially nailed it. This reflects my Tennessee friend's attitude, while she was struggling to stay alive and to stay working while suffering from systemic lupus. She was immeasurably worse off than she would have been in Britain, both because she lacked automatic healthcare entitlement, and because of the employment legislation. However, she was quite touchingly grateful that she lived in America, because she was convinced that she would not have got the medication she needed in any other country. Entirely on the grounds, so far as I could tell, that America was self-evidently best at everything, so she must be getting the best.

Dan's repeated references to "soc" healthcare are quite telling. It seems incredible to me that anyone could be quite so naive as to reject anything involving pooling resources for the greater good, on principle, simply because of attitudes formed in the Cold War, but it does seem as if that's what's happening.

Rolfe.
 
This is doing my head in.

Taxation is a fact of life.

If my government chooses to spend the funds it raises on keeping it's poulation healthy then I'm all for that.

The opposing argument of FREEDOM!!! when taken to it's logical conclusion is that there should be no taxation at all, isn't it?

I have to say, Dan, that I really can't wrap my head around your position at all.
 
I'm still trying to understand Dan.

He wants to be free to refuse to contribute to anyone else's healthcare. Not that he definitely will refuse, you understand, because he's not a bad person really, he just wants to have the right to refuse.

In that case you have to abolish Medicare and Medicaid. You can't fund them from taxes, because that doesn't allow people the right not to contribute. So they're gone.

He will grudgingly accept the existence of health insurance, so long as he has the right not to participate. He'll even participate, because he recognises that there's no prospect that he would be able to pay for a big-ticket item of health expenditure if he needed it. (Well, until somehow the free market brings the cost of the sort of care Mark received down to about the same as a Big Mac, but he still hasn't explained how that can possibly happen, or how he'll persuade any doctor to remain in the USA if they're being paid the same as someone asking "do you want fries with that?")

But that's OK, because it's voluntary.

Theoretically, it's voluntary. But practically? You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant. You do know that you won't possibly be able to afford to pay for one if you do. You've also abolished Medicare and Medicaid (see above). So what happens if you exercise your right not to participate in any risk-sharing scheme, and then you get sick with something expensive?

You die.

But that's OK, that's my choice, says Dan (sorry, can't find the post, but he did say it).

Maybe we should examine the implications of this?

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
What if I don't want to pay for someone elses HC?
Click to expand...

So if you are not a heart surgeon you are exempt from having to pay, or can heart surgeons refuse to treat people with lethal heart conditions?


What right does anyone have to make them pay and work for that procedure?

Being left to die in the street is the only solution.
 
Darat said:
You are now just repeating yourself. As has been explained a few times there is no way unless you remove the concept of insurance from your health system that you can avoid paying for other people's health-care.
Click to expand...

Also the mandated treatment does that as well. IF a hospital loses money being forced to treat patients who can not pay, they have to charge those who can pay more.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
I DO care if people "die in the streets", but I also recognize someone elses right to not care. Soc-HC forces people under law to pay and assumes that if there weren't a law everyone in need would be left to die.
Click to expand...

So you are for removing laws that prevent hospitals from doing that and restricting their freedom.

Essentially you want it to happen, but you will feel bad about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom