Government run health care and government run schools

[Rolfe]

Nope, still don't see what was wrong with what parky said initially. And it's not about what I believe in. It's about what I see working day in day out, and which you seem to constantly misrepresent in order, apparently, to avoid the danger of enjoying the same benefits.

He didn't mention that those who choose to send their children to private school still pay their taxes towards the puplic school system, because that's taken as read.

He didn't agonise over the inability of low-waged people to opt out of the publicly-funded system because that is not a choice that is essential to getting an education. Or it shouldn't be.

If your point is that for some people the public school system is not sufficient, and you thus infer that a publicly-funded healthcare system will also prove to be insufficient, so that even poor people will want to reject it and find help elsewhere, then I submit we are merely back at the piss-up in the brewery argument.

And even if that were all true, the availability of publicly-funded healthcare for these people would still be an improvement on nothing at all, which is what they have at the moment. So they will have more choice by definition.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You are wrong. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Recognizing that those costs constrain a person's choices is not the same as saying that everyone should be able to opt out of any such costs. Recognizing that many people in the US do not have a free choice between public and private education is not the same thing as calling for an end to public education. Can you really not understand the difference between recognition of a reality and expression of a preference?

I repeat, I do not understand what you are objecting to. People with greater resources always have greater choices. This will be so in education, healthcare, home security, everything.

What reduction in choice would the system being proposed result in for anyone?

Rolfe.

 

[kallsop]

Nobody has the details down that fine yet, and everything is subject to change. Having said that, I expect the government will be happy to have you pay for their health care and not use it. That wasn't possible with Hillarycare but Obamacare is a whole different beast and the democrats surely learned from their 1994 electoral wipeout?

 

[Thunder]

I don't think what Parky said was deeply flawed at all. It was an analogy. And like all analogies it only goes so far. I've already pointed out areas in which it doesn't really hold.

Your argument seems to be going right back to, if I choose not to access the publicly-funded system ( of education, roads, police, libraries, foreign embassies or whatever) then I should not have to pay the proportion of my taxes that goes to fund these things.

That way lies the breakdown of society.

Rolfe.

I don't drive on highways in Oregon. Why should my tax dollars pay for highways I don't drive on???

why should my tax dollars pay for the medical care of veterans? its not like they are gonna fight any more...right?

I gotta watch out for number one. No free rides!!!

 

[Ziggurat]

And it's not about what I believe in. It's about what I see working day in day out, and which you seem to constantly misrepresent in order, apparently, to avoid the danger of enjoying the same benefits.

Like I said, you're stuck on carrying things over from other threads. What misrepresentations have I made in this thread? Either point to a specific post, or admit that I have done nothing of the sort here.

He didn't agonise over the inability of low-waged people to opt out of the publicly-funded system because that is not a choice that is essential to getting an education. Or it shouldn't be.

No. He simply ignored the fact that the obligation to pay into the public system prevents many people from making alternative choices.

If your point is that for some people the public school system is not sufficient, and you thus infer that a publicly-funded healthcare system will also prove to be insufficient

That is not my point either. Rather, mandatory payments into the public system will prevent some people from making alternative choices. Whatever its advantages, that is still the reality, a reality which parky's post studiously avoids, and which you have done likewise.

And even if that were all true, the availability of publicly-funded healthcare for these people would still be an improvement on nothing at all

Which is irrelevant to my position, because I have not claimed otherwise.

 

[Rolfe]

I have to say I'm quite surprised by the lack of detail being shown so far. Is the proposal that universal healthcare be delivered by the insurance companies, as it is in parts of Europe, or that the insurance companies should remain entirely in the private sector as in Britain?

Is the government intending to fund the universal care out of taxes, with people paying in proportion to what they earn, or is there a proposal for people to pay on a different system, such as perceived-risk or even flat rate contribtions?

Does the government intend merely to pay existing providers to deliver the free-at-point-of-need care, or does it intend to set up a completely parallel system of public and private hospitals?

Surely to God such things have been thought about?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

No. He simply ignored the fact that the obligation to pay into the public system prevents many people from making alternative choices.

[....] mandatory payments into the public system will prevent some people from making alternative choices. Whatever its advantages, that is still the reality.

Please make up your mind. You have already agreed that nobody is disadvantaged by the system being proposed. You have failed to demonstrate any actual, real options that are being denied to people by the proposed system.

If people have enough income that they are liable for tax, then they will be paying tax at present. Allowing them to access the tax-funded system is not depriving them of an alternative choice.

If people have so little income that they are not liable for tax, then theywill be getting something for free. Yay them. Where is the lost choice?

To imply some mythical lost choice of a privately-paid-for service that even the poorest could afford if it weren't for these pesky taxes, and use this as the main plank of what seems to be a spirited opposition to the proposed system, is looking a bit like a straw man.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

If people have enough income that they are liable for tax, then they will be paying tax at present.

Which means that they are currently being denied choices that they would have if they didn't have to pay. Which contradicts what I've said... how? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

 

[corplinx]

Likewise, I think a public health care will work best when the people it effects are active in making sure it does so.

I don't think HSAs are part of Obama-care. I'm not sure how we make sure people use their new insurance responsibly and shop the best deals.

 

[Rolfe]

Which means that they are currently being denied choices that they would have if they didn't have to pay. Which contradicts what I've said... how? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

So is this just a general sort of Libertarian anti-tax statement? We'd all be so much better off if we were allowed to retain the money we presently pay in tax and spend it in whatever way we choose?

Interesting philosophical position, but not really of great practical relevance to a specific debate on healthcare - an area where, quite clearly, a high proportion of people would not be able to fund their requirements if they were forced to rely exclusively on their own private means.

Rolfe.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Republicans have been making the exact same stupid argument about universal healthcare for 50 years.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/reaganmed.jpg

Literally.

What do they think, a bunch of Red Chinese are going to burst into your doctor's office and force you to sing the International?

Actually, that would be the Obama administration that will burst into your doctor's office and force you to sing the Internationale. But given all the under-the-table campaign contributions from China funneled into the Obama and Clinton campaigns, it will be the Red-Chinese-by-proxy who will do the bursting and forcing.

Not for me, though. I'm 'pushing' back until the waiting room is cleared of the bursters and forcers.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Government run health care will be not-for-profit. That means lower costs. Private HMOs will have to lower their rediculous costs in order to keep up and stay competitive. Maybe even reduce CEO pay and yearly bonuses!!! God forbid!!

Free market wins.

Name me one single industry in which government control lowers costs. Just one. And just what is it that you think profits are and what is it that you think they do?

 

[Ysidro]

I just want to chime in and say I have no idea what Ziggy's point is about anything here. I think it's something to do with choice, but I'm afraid I'll get accused of not reading his posts if I go further.

 

[Upchurch]

Except that they're still paying for public schools, even if they aren't attending. And many parents can't afford to pay for both simultaneously, so for many parents there is no realistic choice other than government-run schools. Which is why voucher systems have become attractive for many lower-income parents.

Interesting idea. Public school is usually paid for through local taxes (income, property, what-have-you). Lower-income parents generally pay a lower amount of those taxes.

To support your thesis, you would need to show that what the amount lower-income parents pay in taxes would be comparable to what it would cost to send their children to private school.

For that matter, it might be interesting to see if even middle- to higher-income families could pay for private school for roughly what they pay in public school-bound tax money, given that it is subsidized by tax payers who do not have school aged children.

 

[Rolfe]

I just want to chime in and say I have no idea what Ziggy's point is about anything here. I think it's something to do with choice, but I'm afraid I'll get accused of not reading his posts if I go further.

Oh, good. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me.

Of course we'd all have more choice if we were allowed to spend the money we pay in tax any way we liked. Until we desperately needed something that wasn't provided for us and which we hadn't saved for. Too bad, you already made your choice.

What, you want the nanny state to make sure you save for the things you might desperately need in the future? You want the government to wipe your backside for you too? What happened to personal responsibility?

Well, yeah. I want the state to make sure other people save for the things they might desperately need in the future too. So the burden of caring for those who draw a crap hand in life is shared equitably among all citizens, and not left to those who are the softest touches when the charity rep comes calling.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting idea. Public school is usually paid for through local taxes (income, property, what-have-you). Lower-income parents generally pay a lower amount of those taxes.

To support your thesis, you would need to show that what the amount lower-income parents pay in taxes would be comparable to what it would cost to send their children to private school.

No. My position does not require that the costs in taxes equals the cost to pay for alternatives. My position only requires that if people could keep the money they pay in taxes, they would be able to afford alternatives. So for example, if they pay half the cost of private school in taxes, and could only pay for half the cost of private school after taxes, then without taxes they could pay for private school. Simple logic, Upchurch. Do you seriously think nobody falls into such a category? Given that incomes and expenses are distributed across a continuum, it's rather difficult to imagine how you could ever not end up with people in that position.

 

[Ziggurat]

So is this just a general sort of Libertarian anti-tax statement? We'd all be so much better off if we were allowed to retain the money we presently pay in tax and spend it in whatever way we choose?

Yet again, you find it irresistable to create strawmen. Did I say anything about people being better off? No, I did not. So stop attributing positions to me which I have never expressed. It's getting old. There are benefits to having taxation, benefits which I have not denied. But the existence of benefits, while it may outweigh the costs, does not magically make those costs go away. Why is it that a statement merely recognizing those costs is automatically attributed to categorical opposition to any form of taxation? It simply doesn't make sense. Hell, categorical opposition to taxation is not even a libertarian position, it's an anarchist position, so you're apparently confused not only about what I believe, but about what libertarianism is (and here's a hint: I'm not a libertarian). So why would you attribute such a position to me, Rolfe, when it simply doesn't follow from anything I've said? Why do you keep doing this?

 

[3point14]

Yet again, you find it irresistable to create strawmen. Did I say anything about people being better off? No, I did not. So stop attributing positions to me which I have never expressed. It's getting old. There are benefits to having taxation, benefits which I have not denied. But the existence of benefits, while it may outweigh the costs, does not magically make those costs go away. Why is it that a statement merely recognizing those costs is automatically attributed to categorical opposition to any form of taxation? It simply doesn't make sense. Hell, categorical opposition to taxation is not even a libertarian position, it's an anarchist position, so you're apparently confused not only about what I believe, but about what libertarianism is (and here's a hint: I'm not a libertarian). So why would you attribute such a position to me, Rolfe, when it simply doesn't follow from anything I've said? Why do you keep doing this?

I think the reason is that your position is perceived as unclear.

Perhaps rather than refuting the positions that people are trying to crowbar you into, you could let us know what your position is? Or refer me to where in the thread your position is stated as I must have missed it. Sorry.

 

[Rolfe]

Seconded.

Ziggurat, it seems as if you have absolutely failed to make your actual position clear either to me or to several others. Now if you're just making idle remarks rather than participating in discussion, then fine. But if you are intending to contribute towards the discussion, then one would hope that it would be possible for the reader to discern your actual point.

If none of the positions I've tried to discern from your posts is your actual position, then help us all out here, please.

Rolfe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And that first post is different from how universal healthcare works everywhere^* else, exactly how?

Because that is how it works in canada.