I'm sure all the girls are lined up to blow the UPS dude, too.

*****es love a man in uniform.

Okay then.


The problem here is that, if the government will give me healthcare, why should I pay for my own? I'm going to milk the socialized system for as much as I can. And, in fact, my insurance company will make me : They'll be damned if they are going to cover something the government will give to me.
The second is costs. While it would certainly be cheaper for the consumer - in the short run, at least - somebody has to pay the doctors. The government doesn't spend it's own money, it spends our money; taxes will inevitably rise. This, of course, means that I have less money. So I'm trading tax money for a) reduced insurance coverage, b) a less competitive healthcare system (Thus, a reduction in healthcare quality), and c) a bureaucratic nightmare.

The argument I find more compelling, however, is much simpler. The government can't run anything. They screw up everything. Why the hell should we let them screw this up too?

I feel that you shouldn't make a stand against something unless you have an alternate solution to the obvious problem, but I've got a viable solution. A cap on malpractice suit pay outs would greatly reduce the amount doctors and hospitals have to pay for malpractice insurance, and would in turn greatly reduce their rates.

Only if you're a meter maid.

Why on earth would I, or anyone, want to do that? I'm not a masochist.

BTW:



Since when in the hell has anyone ever had to wait for this? Rob is here.

i agree with this, although i think there would have to be levels to the cap. lowest payout to "psychological" effects(pain and suffering, etc.), median payout for minor physical disability(impairment of mobility/dexterity), and the highest for major physical disability(loss of use of limbs, blindness etc)/death.

Aww, Ron Paul won no states.

like theres a suprise there.

Such is the influence of the mainstream media.

the whole point of also having private care available is that it tends to not have waiting lists, as there is less beurocracy to go through, and you pay pretty much right away, meaning that you can get your care faster, so people who can afford it will go for private care so they dont get stuck on waiting lists.

believe me, even though the socialised healthcare in australia is good, the waiting lists for some procedures and some doctors can be enormous, meaning that it would be stupid to stay in the public healthcare system when you can afford private healthcare. and with the people that go to private care that can afford it, then there are less people on the public system, making it easier for both groups.

Finaly, why did you say it wouldnt work dispite the fact that I said that we have that system here in Australia and it works, and there is much better oversight of the system as well.

America's health care system is the envy of the world, and any modification to it would only bring disaster.

Same reasons Australians pay for their own if they're capable of doing so; they don't want to wait in line, or they want a higher quality of care than the government health services are capable of making available to everyone.



Just wait for Montana.

They're keepin you down brother

I don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17153378

Wow... the headlines on this page are ridiculous.

We aren't Australia. We have more people, denser population centers, etc. And, frankly, it's past experience. The government messes everything up. Nothing they do works. The only thing they can do effectively is collect taxes, and even that is riddled with fraud on both sides.

Yes, for the middle class and upwards. Also don't confuse the quality of America's health care for its actual system. The majority of the world's best hospitals are in the US, and the US leads all sorts of medical research. But that doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

Wouldn't it be possible to keep the current health care system (mostly) and subsidize costs for those who can't afford it?

Strewth, I've got sizeable responses from 3 people, so forgive me if I don't directly respond to particulars.

[quote=IRG SithLord]He also wants to remove legislation and taxes that help restrict the development of new energy sources. He also favors offering incentives to those who ride a bike or a bus (heh).[/quote]
The original criticism of Ron Paul's environmental policies is unaddressed. He wants to repeal legislation designed to protect the environment. Clean air laws aren't made just for kicks and giggles. Please tell us why repealing laws restricting pollution is a good thing.

[quote=IRG SithLord]It's not unreasonable at all to believe that forbidding religious exercises in public places (school, etc.) is unconstitutional.[/quote]
Being a Brit I don't entirely know the situation. I was under the impression that individual students praying, student run organisations etc were fine as they acted then as private individuals. Teachers for example are acting as representatives of the state during school hours and thus would be expected not to bring their religion into lessons. I know there are groups about like Campus Crusade for Christ that doesn't seem to run into too many problems. Am I misunderstanding the situation?



Science has to assume naturalistic materialism. We've gone over this dozens of times before but when the supernatural is involved by its very nature its undetectable. Which means we may as well treat it as being non-existent. If it was detectable then it would fall well within the realms of scientific study and would be considered material. The supernatural has nothing to do with science because all we can do is make blind conjecture about it.


Then it is for you to examine why you hold those preconceptions and look at whether you are sure and how you are sure they are based in concrete reality. If they're not and you still insist on holding on to them, you might understand at least why people don't want you pushing it into school syllabi.


I'm guessing you refer to the lists held by the Discovery Institute and even some YEC groups. Not only is it an appeal to authority fallacy but if we do follow it, the numbers on the other side far outweigh it. Project Steve was set up to parody it. Any scientist with the first name Steve is welcome to sign the list that they support evolution. The number of Steves far outweighs any list from the DI or YEC guys. Not only that but the statement signed in the list from the DI is so vague that frankly, if I had a PhD, I'd sign it too and I have no problem with evolution.


Finally, Isuwen, I add the name calling after I've made my points, if my responses were all name calling, you'd be arguing with me using single lines like with Rob. I called the anti-gay marriage people bigots because whether they realise it or not, that is what they are. Give me a coherent reason as to why gay marriage is such a bad thing that doesn't fall flat on its face like those on that satirical list I posted and maybe I might change my mind.
I didn't call all pro-lifers "absolutist idiots", I used that for those who want a blanket ban on all types of abortion, if all pro-lifers subscribe to that, then I see no harm in calling a spade "a spade". It's precisely that type of reasoning that has impeded embryonic stem cell research in your country. Pluripotent ESCs are needed which you'll only find in the very earliest stages of embryonic development before they differentiate into different types. It really is just a ball of cells at that point. But while you accuse me of being emotional, I'd argue it's the people who are crying "Think of the children! That clump of 16 cells is a human being!" who are being emotional. I'm not saying there isn't a line to be drawn and I believe most "pro-choicers" would agree. But just as I'd call someone an idiot on one end of the scale if they couldn't see a grey area and campaigned for post-natal abortions; I'll call idiot on those who can't see the distinction between the initial ball of cells and the crying, kicking, screaming, very much human baby that pops out 9 months later.

Aw hell yeah. Living with the NHS, I'm always deliberately having car crashes, catching horrible diseases and developing cancer just so I can milk the system!

Those taxes aren't so bad for what you end up getting: reassurance that no matter what happens you will receive treatment even if it costs beyond your personal means. And it's not as expensive as you think, for one thing you're not paying for HMO profit margins.

a)You don't need insurance to cover the costs of care, that's what your taxes paid for.
b)True somewhat, although quality of healthcare is a major voting issue, forcing governments to show they're doing something about it. The conservative party still gets stick here for shutting down so many hospitals during their last period of power. We still have private healthcare available for those who can afford it, and between themselves they're very competitive.
c)No more a bureaucratic nightmare than calling your HMO in an emergency, being told to avoid the ambulance to keep costs down. Being refused help on a technicality, being sent to a hospital miles away because the one near by is too expensive for your plan etc. Frankly I'll stick to being able to turn up, give my name and date of birth and receive treatment for whatever problem I have.

They all have to check the box next to 'believe that the government will turn off the internet to stop ron paul and his minions' on the registry of ron paulites website.

I very much agree, and that's where the incentive comes in for private health care. However, the trick is reducing the free-riding affect of nationalized health care. Despite it seeming non-humanitarian, I should not have to pay for anybody else's health care other than my own. If I am paying for private health care, that should be ALL that I'm paying for. I shouldn't have to give the government money to pay for someone elses. Privatized health care looks a lot less attractive when you are paying for that, as well as the nationalized.

Also, yes, it is absurd to believe that people will seriously injure themselves if they had nationalized health care. However, one cannot deny that there is less of a cost involved in engaging in risky behavior. Not to mention insurance rates would probably go up because of this.

Fish, thanks for that link. That made me laugh, hahah

You do realise that when a country has socialised healthcare, the average health of the nation tends to increase, meaning that the amount of money spent on paying for said socialised healthcare goes down, and also, you will still only be paying for those that are using socialized healthcare.

Also, you do know that socialized healthcare does not give you lots of money, it will only give you the healthcare you need. And why would insurance rates go up, you are only paying them if you are on private healthcare, which only people that can afford them will use, and with private healthcare, they usualy take into acount your current conditions.

People keep saying that socialized healthcare doesnt work, dispite the fact that there are many nations that have it, and it works quite well for them. And the oversite means that they cant just get the cheapest doctors they can, and cover up mistakes that happen. In Australia, and I assume other countries with socialized healthcare (I dont know becuase stories to do with healthcare systems tend not to become international news), if a mistake, even a minor one happens in a government funded hospital, there is quite often a lot of people complaining that the government should be taking better care of people in the socialized healthcare system, the government makes an effort to rectify said problem, and the healthcare system gets better. As people have said, the government hospital's level of care tends to be a major voter issue as there are lots of people that use it, so the government tends to have a big incentive to make their damnedest sure that the system works well.

Maybe you should just make the point and stop, then.



I want a blanket ban on all types of abortion. Am I an 'absolutist idiot'?

uhhh, yes.

Blanket bans are stupid, because they never take into account rare, or even merely uncommon situations that arise.

What would you define as an abortion, an act that causes an end of a pregnancy without the baby surviving. Would that mean that a C-section that goes wrong due to unforseen complications would be considdered an abortion. Or what about a car accident involving a pregnant woman in which said woman miscarries, would that mean that the person responsible for the crash has carried out an illegal abortion?

I know some of those are stupid, but those points could be argued if a law is not very careful in its definition of what an abortion is.

It's always amused me that the wealthiest country in the world (supposedly) can't afford to provide healthcare to its population, while almost every single country in Europe can.

Healthcare should be a right, not a privelidge. 47 million Americans (16% of the population) do not have health insurance, rising by 7 million since 2000. Most Americans get their insurance through their employer and as employment is becoming less stable, health insurance is becoming less reliable. Health premiums are becoming more expensive, so some employers don't offer insurance and many Americans can't afford it anyway.
Those without insurance are at much higher risk, as they'll get less preventative care. 20% of uninsured Americans say their usual source of care is the emergency room (compared to 3% of the population), and the mortality rate among the uninsured is much higher.

Yes, privatised hospital care is very good but only for those that can afford it. Less and less Americans can afford it, and instead have to worry about paying upfront for medical care.
I find it absurd and frankly obscene that a developed country cannot offer something so basic and trivial to its citizens.

The administrative costs of the insurance companies are huge, they are riddled with bureaucracy. Usually it stems from people phoning to ask whether certain procedures are covered in their insurance, and legal disputes about coverage. A state-run system has much lower administrative costs.

The British NHS is far from perfect, no-one can possibly claim otherwise, but I love the fact I never have to worry about health care. If I get sick, I will get treatment. If I want, I can opt for private health care, there's nothing stopping me (other than I sure as hell can't afford it) but I will always be covered by the NHS.

You seem to have the typical laissez faire attitude that competition is always 'good'. For hospitals, this is simply another administrative burden. Yes, in some cases it will improve services, but in others it will lead to cutting corners and poor medical practises. When the 'service' you're dealing with is people's lives, is this really something you want competed over? I go to hospital to make me better, I'm not shopping for high-speed broadband. The policies of a national health care system are accountable to the government in power, and are very important voting issues. Private health care simply doesn't have this accountability.

That said, the French healthcare system is extremely good, much better than the British system. They have a system of providing universal health care, but the providers are private companies that compete amongst themselves for government grants (or something like that, the system is fairly complex but the outcome for patients is excellent).

Some combination of both national and private health care is, of course, the best result for patients. Simply refusing the very concept of a national healthcare system is absurd in a developed country. Especially considering the US funds universal healthcare systems in Iraq and Afganistan, which it cannot provide for its own citizens.

(See http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage_fact_sheet_2007.pdf for all these fun facts and more!)

that is exactly correct mort. It realy does seem that people that say that socialized healthcare is bad make it seem like socialized healthcare and private healthcare are not able to exist alongside one another. Then you have the appeal to McCarthy in which people call it communist healthcare to make people scared of it (usualy those who recieve donations from large companies involved with private healthcare).

I do agree that having only a government provided system is stupid (just look at England's attempt to socialize a lot of their infrastructure back after world war 2, it did not work well at all), but so is having only a private healthcare system.

My main problem with socialized health care is that I don't see why I should be forced to pay for the health care of another person. I suppose if you can develop a system where I can have my privatized health care, and have your national health care system where I don't have to pay for it, then you can make whatever national health care system that you want. Doesn't matter to me as long as your not expecting me to foot the bill for it.

Well, the issue is that he wants to remove federal jurisdiction, which arguably has its pros and cons. On one hand, we're looking at repealing federal legislation that hinders pollution while on the other hand we're looking at repealing legislation that hinders pursuit of other energy sources (ie, cleaner and renewable).



Teachers are expected to keep to their lessons (and appears to be the primary argument) but legislation tends to encourage the prohibition of exercising individual religious freedoms. Of course, this tends to be more of an issue in highschool and lower.

Do you pay taxes? Then you are already footing the bill for things that benefit other people. Do you believe that taxes are just (not the specific tax code we live under, but the concept of taxes)? Healthcare would be just another service that would benefit the populace.

Why is it that you have a problem with paying for the healthcare of others, but no problem with things like, paying taxes towards schools, infrastructure (i doubt you use all the infrastructure your taxes go towards more than a few times), the salaries of government employees (I mean, why should you have to pay for the salaries of people in a party you didnt vote for ).

You do realize that your insurance costs in private healthcare do things like pay for the costs of all the beurocracy that goes on (that has been previously mentioned), maintenance of hospitals, paying doctors.

As i have said before, while having a socialized only system does not work, having only private healthcare is also bad. remember, as the nation gets healthier, the cost of socialized healthcare goes down. But as long as you dont have any socialized healthcare, the general health of the US can only go down, as costs will only increase as the average health goes down (companies will increase their charges, and use the declining average health as an excuse even though uninsured people are the reason for the average health declining).


bah, carpking beat me on the taxes issue.

Green paper does a lot for us, apparently.

But everyones paying the same amount, so think of it this way. You're not paying for your someone elses healthcare, you're paying for your own, only everyone else is doing the same.

Its exactly the same you would say, build your pension.

1. I do have a problem paying taxes for schools and infrastructure that I don't use. It's a cost-shifting problem. Which is why to help make things "more fair", I would prefer states to exclusively manage things like schools, roads, etc. It wouldn't totally get rid of the cost-shifting problem, but it would make things more localized. And frankly, the only government employees that should exist are those that work in institutions/programs that are outlined in the Constitution, therefore our taxes would be paying for things we use.

2. This assumes that having nationalized health care would make everyone healthier. The problem is that those who are not wealthy are the ones who would abuse the system and overuse the healthcare system. They've got a cough, they'll go to the doctors office when frankly, they probably don't have to. It's overuse and would contribute to increasings costs. Also, there are definitely arguments that totally privatized health care would lead to lower prices as firms would be competing against each other, but that gets into more of a free market debate, which isn't what we are talking about.



However, I may only visit a doctors office twice if I am a healthy person. Someone else may visit the doctor 5/6 times every couple months. His health care is much more expensive than mine. Again, it's a cost-shifting problem.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, even though it may seem like I don't. I just believe that costs need to be appropriately distributed to those who use the system. If I decide to use national healthcare, I should pay for it. If I don't however, I shouldn't. Things should be provided for the people that pay for them. Edit: I may be wrong, but I always thought Obama was a believer in this type of health care system. For some reason I remember him saying that entering into nationalized healthcare would be optional for the consumer. Feel free to correct me

Which environmental protection legislation is it that hinders pursuit of cleaner energy sources? There is some debate about command and control approaches vs. market-based ones and which more effectively protect the environment, but none of them actively hinder other energy sources. Most such legislation encourages their development. And all of these systems require national oversight. In fact, in many cases national oversight is merely the best we can do, as the problems the legislation tries to address are actually international in scope.




And which legislation would that be? Students who wish to pray when they are not expected to be focusing on something else and in such a way that it does not disrupt others are not prohibited from doing so. My high school had a bible study from time to time (entirely student-led) and even Campus Crusade folk that occasionally lurked outside.

see, the problem with only paying taxes towards the things you use is pointless, as it is THE EXACT SAME THING as privatisation. To work, a nation needs to have its citizens looking out for more than just themselves.

the problem with only having privatized care is that the only care people with little money can afford would probably be totaly insufficiant for their needs. Not to mention that they could cut corners on safety. To see why this would happen, you only need to look at the airline industry. there have been a number of crashes caused by airlines trying to save money by either reducing money spent on maintenance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 for an example of a crash caused by cutting corners on maintenance), or by keeping a plane in service longer than its service life ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 luckily there was only one death, but the plane came very close to being totaly ripped apart).

In the medical industry, it will lead to the cheaper services only covering the most basic of procedures for a certain condition, not covering any preventative care (after all, why should they pay for something that is not yet a problem :rolleyes:), keeping doctors that have a history of making errors (not that that doesnt already happen), using old equipment for far longer than they should.

Also, on your not paying for anything you dont use, the main problem is that small towns would go bankrupt within two years, as they would not be able to afford to keep their infrastructure maintained, because only their population uses it.

And on keeping the federal government away from things and letting state governments manage things. the worst part of it is that it will lead to a major breakdown in interstate commerce, as there will be widely varying regulations between differant states.

In our lifetimes most of us will never need deal with the Police or the Fire services. Our taxes pay for these services to operate should we ever need them though.

Should we not pay for these with taxes, instead just letting the police and firemen bill us after they save our lives? Maybe we should get special Police Insurance where we sometimes our request for help gets turned down because it's not covered by our policies.

Seriously, how is it that you have no problem paying for someone else's well-being when it comes to Crime and Fire, but are opposed to doing the same when it comes to their health?

Just so I can say it,

OVERLY SUCCESSFUL THREADS ABOUT SEARCHING FOR RICK ROLLS = WIN.

Let's see European countries spend as much on their militaries as we do and see if that still holds true, eh? I'm not saying I agree with our budget, I'm just toning the smug down a notch in here.