Health care - administrative incompetence

[Vorticity]

No one is mistaking you for a humanitarian.

Except possibly in the sense of "You're a vegetarian? Well, I'm a humanitarian!"

I mean really. Surely you're not suggesting we waste all of that tender, euthanised meat?

I wonder how many other unintentional references to 1960s-1970s TV/Movie dystopian visions we can identify. So far, we've got:

1) Withdrawal of support from those in obsolete industries.

2) Maximum age laws.

3) Euthanasia for the elderly.

Continuing the Heston theme, perhaps a "last Libertarian standing in the face of a horrifying collective" fantasy can be worked in?


Edited to add:

"OUR. NATIONAL. HEALTH. SYSTEM. IS. SUPERIOR. JOIN! UUUSSSSSS!"

"NNNOOOOOOOOOOO! WHOISJOHNGAAAAAAAAAALT!!"

 

[Wildy]

Who is John Galt?

He's a fictional character who created a "gulch" that supposedly ran on pure free market principles. He's kind of like Andrew Ryan only his gulch was on dry land instead of under the sea, and didn't collapse in a massive drug-fuelled civil war.

 

[Vorticity]

Who is John Galt?

He's a fictional character who created a "gulch" that supposedly ran on pure free market principles. He's kind of like Andrew Ryan only his gulch was on dry land instead of under the sea, and didn't collapse in a massive drug-fuelled civil war.

I prefer to think of him as the Libertarian Holden Caulfield.

ETA:

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, TFian knows perfectly well who John Galt is. The phrase "Who is John Galt?" is a rallying cry for hard-core Randian Objectivists.

 

[xjx388]

The entire idea of human government is inherently Socialist in nature: A population collectively agrees to cede a certain degree of individual power and/or wealth to a collective authority, which in turn provides various desirable necessities: Goods, organization, defense, regulation.

That's not really what Socialism means.

At the core, Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is allowed.

I would say that governments are inherently Collectivist.

 

[stokes234]

That's not really what Socialism means.

At the core, Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production as opposed to Capitalism where private ownership is allowed.

I would say that governments are inherently Collectivist.

The term "socialism" has been bandied round too much to have a solid meaning, though dictionaries would typically agree with you. Many use it to refer simply to left-wing policies, without neccessarily abolishing private property or private means of production. For example, in this post, BaC - one of the more right-wing jref frequenters - uses a passage from Keynes that explicitly includes the right to private property and free enterprise to argue that Keynes was a socialist.

As to governments being inherently collectivist - I can't say whether or not you're trying to use collectivist as a derogatory term there, but I will say that a government that allowed certain individuals to *own* part of it strikes me as an all round bad idea.

 

[Architect]

XjX, like many Americans, seems to confuse the terms "socialist" and "communist" as they are commonly used in the rest of the western world. So most European governments are broadly socialist in natures - see, for example, restrictions on some aspects of the free market and control in prices - as a means of ensuring a level playing field however most have also divested themselves of the nationalised industries and hence "public" ownership.

 

[xjx388]

I ain't confusin' nuttin.

Socialism is economic in nature:

defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production

Communism is economic (socialism) and social (classless society).

European countries have socialist tendencies but are not socialist in nature in that private ownership of capital is still allowed.

 

[Darat]

Just so I know - can you tell me which European countries you are referring to or do you mean them all?

 

[bookitty]

I ain't confusin' nuttin.

Socialism is economic in nature:

defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production

Communism is economic (socialism) and social (classless society).
European countries have socialist tendencies but are not socialist in nature in that private ownership of capital is still allowed.

And surely, that is the worst that could happen in the US. There's no way that enough politicians who were sympathetic to strong socialist principals would be elected. So, there is no chance that pure socialism as envisioned by the teabaggers would take effect.

The worst case scenario is that we would adopt the very general social aspects of caring for the entire population instead of a privileged few.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

And surely, that is the worst that could happen in the US. There's no way that enough politicians who were sympathetic to strong socialist principals would be elected. So, there is no chance that pure socialism as envisioned by the teabaggers would take effect.The worst case scenario is that we would adopt the very general social aspects of caring for the entire population instead of a privileged few.

That is not entirely true. The more you create people who are reliant upon the government the more you create voters who will elect politicians who aim to take care of the people. The idea is for people to depend upon the government as little as possible. IMHO.

 

[bookitty]

That is not entirely true. The more you create people who are reliant upon the government the more you create voters who will elect politicians who aim to take care of the people. The idea is for people to depend upon the government as little as possible. IMHO.

See, that's the difference between you and I. You feel that most people, if given a choice, will take what they can without working. I feel that most people, if given a chance, will work for a living.

In the former scenario any assistance from the government is a slippery slope to a world of welfare queens sitting around demanding caviar on their free toast. In the latter, the government provides those services that should be universally available (roads, schools, health care, etc) to a population that pays for it from taxes earned by working.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

See, that's the difference between you and I. You feel that most people, if given a choice, will take what they can without working. I feel that most people, if given a chance, will work for a living.

In the former scenario any assistance from the government is a slippery slope to a world of welfare queens sitting around demanding caviar on their free toast. In the latter, the government provides those services that should be universally available (roads, schools, health care, etc) to a population that pays for it from taxes earned by working.

Your first statements may have some truth to them.

Do you disagree that the goal is to have people depend on the government as little as possible?

 

[bookitty]

Your first statements may have some truth to them.

Do you disagree that the goal is to have people depend on the government as little as possible?

Yes, I do in a general sense. For me the goal is to create a government that makes the best use of taxes to serve the entire population. That doesn't mean that I want the government to raise/lower everyone to the same level. Nor does it mean that the population is "dependent" on the government. Only that through taxes, plus careful fiscal budgeting, and reducing government reliance on outside agencies, the government can afford to offer the very basic needs of a civilized society. Which include schools that prepare children for college or trade, affordable college loans, basic medical care, dignified care of the elderly, etc.

 

[xjx388]

I think the goal is to reduce dependence on the government and increase self-reliance. I really don't understand why so many people are content to let the government provide basic stuff like education and healthcare when 1)They do a horrible job and 2)They cannot control the costs.

Look at education, for example. The United States is very low-ranked in Math, Science and Reading scores. Yet we spend more than most countries. This is one area where the government has absolutely failed.

I think the government needs to exist to provide for defense, civil and criminal justice and infrastructure. That's it. Everything else should be up to private enterprise.

 

[bookitty]

I think the goal is to reduce dependence on the government and increase self-reliance. I really don't understand why so many people are content to let the government provide basic stuff like education and healthcare when 1)They do a horrible job and 2)They cannot control the costs.

Look at education, for example. The United States is very low-ranked in Math, Science and Reading scores. Yet we spend more than most countries. This is one area where the government has absolutely failed.

I think the government needs to exist to provide for defense, civil and criminal justice and infrastructure. That's it. Everything else should be up to private enterprise.

And yet almost every other country that has government provided health care and schools offers better examples of both at a lower cost. The only difference is that we have far more private enterprise meddling in how our government is run.

And really, it's funny that you mention defense. Our defense budget is huge because we need to remain a superpower. The dollar standard is fading away because of our private banking shenanigans. We no longer produce the same amount for export on US soil because private enterprise has moved everything offshore. Thanks to the influence of private enterprise, we haven't invested in alternative energy sources and are now reliant on countries that hate us for oil. If we didn't have that big fat money-sucking defense department, we'd be a minor player.

 

[stokes234]

I think the goal is to reduce dependence on the government and increase self-reliance. I really don't understand why so many people are content to let the government provide basic stuff like education and healthcare when 1)They do a horrible job and 2)They cannot control the costs.

Look at education, for example. The United States is very low-ranked in Math, Science and Reading scores. Yet we spend more than most countries. This is one area where the government has absolutely failed.

I think the government needs to exist to provide for defense, civil and criminal justice and infrastructure. That's it. Everything else should be up to private enterprise.

You appear to be drawing a trend line with only one data point. I've never seen anything to suggest that the private sector does a better job with the same amount of money and the same population demographic than the public sector, in areas of health or education.

Perhaps you could provide some examples to back up your point? Maybe some countries that only have private education or health, and still do well?

 

[xjx388]

You appear to be drawing a trend line with only one data point. I've never seen anything to suggest that the private sector does a better job with the same amount of money and the same population demographic than the public sector, in areas of health or education.

Perhaps you could provide some examples to back up your point? Maybe some countries that only have private education or health, and still do well?

Sweden gives vouchers so that students can choose a private school instead of a public one. That's a good start.

Singapore has publicly funded health delivered through a private system. It's cheaper and it works.

No country that I'm aware of has a completely private health or education system. I don't expect there ever will be one. But we can move more to that direction.

 

[Wildy]

Singapore has publicly funded health delivered through a private system. It's cheaper and it works.

And it also has stringent price controls, a national, government owned, insurance system and compulsory savings for healthcare.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think the goal is to reduce dependence on the government and increase self-reliance. I really don't understand why so many people are content to let the government provide basic stuff like education and healthcare when 1)They do a horrible job and 2)They cannot control the costs.

Look at education, for example. The United States is very low-ranked in Math, Science and Reading scores. Yet we spend more than most countries. This is one area where the government has absolutely failed.

But that's what we made the government *for*, to provide public services for the public good. Education is deemed for the public good, healthcare really should be but isn't at the moment.

You can't claim the government has failed at providing education when education takes funding cuts EVERY YEAR and Americans are told being smart is evil.

 

[TFian]

Why?

Because industries are inherently different? Would you chair a biologist to run a physics peer review study?

Such as?

When private industry can not adequately preform the function. Such as consistently producing ineffective weapons or surveillance devices. Or when it's been bought out by foreign nationals.

But you don't need loyal people in industries that you consider vital to the nation?

Most people are expendable. The only reason I make an exception with veterans and active duty troops is because they tend to revolt when made expendable, and their loyalty is needed to keep everyone else in line. Also, giving them an exclusive social safety net can effectively turn them against others who demand similar social safety nets, by simply impressing onto them that they'd have to give up their privileged status if they let the others go in front of the line (like the elderly currently are with Medicare). This creates a powerful narrative which can be used to crush unruly citizens. Divide and conquer the mindsets.

So what do you think should happen to these "defectives"?

The market should decide their fate.

Just like in Logan's Run.

Not quite, I'd make it more like 50 years of age, with exceptions of people with exceptional skill and/or wealth. But I know nothing like that would ever become popular enough, even though it'd be a good policy to reduce resource consumption.

So in other words you want them to be euthanised under coercion. Again that is not legal.

Shunning isn't coercion per se. It'll just be the culture at large pressuring them to do the right thing.