Originally posted by Victor Von DoomAre you talking about the American government?
The doctors work for trusts, which are large independent health bodies, which are ultimately regulated (loosely) by the government. It's mostly funding and recommendations from the government's end.The distance between a doctor and 'the government' is fairly great, and certainly much further than anything that might infringe upon confidentiality.
If health care was indeed free, I'd be all for it. But single-payer, universal health care run by the government is the complete opposite of free (when the government provides a service, it does so through taxes - in case anyone forgot.) Although our current system is far from perfect, and could certainly use some overhaul, I'll take it in lieu of another government boondoggle that costs more than what we have now, encourages indiscriminate patient spending, disincentivizes private enterprise from developing new drugs and competent, prospective students from going into medicine, fosters long waits for critical surgeries, and straddles the economy with a huge sacrosanct entitlement that we will never be able to change or get rid of.
Originally posted by Robtard
You socialist cocksmoker! I'm not going to pay extra taxes so some no-tax paying, drug addicted, homeless, immigrant prostitute can get a free shot of Novocaine and stitches, to patch her up after her latest "John" Donkey-Punched her and then gave her a Cleveland-Steamer while she was out cold! <--- Correct answer
Function: Executing program talkcolloquial.exe...
Function: Program talkcolloquial.exe executed. Initiating program now.
Romney responds well to this fat, stupid *****, but she's a fat stupid *****, so she doesn't get it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/08/02/VI2007080201294.html
Originally posted by chithappens
I'm not understanding the argument v. Universal Healthcare.It's kind of like saying people who pay more taxes should get better police; yes, that was a punch at the system (since it seems to happen in application).
Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that work. Why wouldn't you assume that it was ... well, what I said. A statement that your analogy was shit for...quite obvious reasons.
If you have not lived in a poor neighborhood that probably did not process in your brain.
So you are saying a ghetto receives as much police protection as a suburb?
Originally posted by MarxmanUniversal Health care is a good idea and it should be done.
Amazingly there is no thread on this already.Good or bad? Why or why not? Not specifically in the US. If you live in a country that has it tell us about it.
I like Marxman's idea, that it should only apply to sickness (i.e. plastic surgery, voluntary abortions wouldn't be covered).
The thing is it can't be done all at once. There are so many things that need to be reformed (in the U.S. system). But if we can incrementally fix the problems, then we can move towards truly universal health care.
Originally posted by chithappensNo, I am saying that richer people getting better health care is not analog to richer people getting better police.
If you have not lived in a poor neighborhood that probably did not process in your brain.So you are saying a ghetto receives as much police protection as a suburb?
honestly, the only really good argument against universal health care is the moral anti-state one. It is good, sure, the state does have lots of power, but the jury isn't really out on this one any more.
Randian Utopias are, while the only morally correct way for a government to be run, not the most effective states. And as a pragmatist and technocrat much before liberitarian, I must, MUST, say that the small inconvienience (re: robbery) of taxation is well worth it.
That being said, I am all for competitive private medicine, just not at the expense of a large portion of society.
Randian Utopias are, while the only morally correct way for a government to be run, not the most effective states. And as a pragmatist and technocrat much before liberitarian, I must, MUST, say that the small inconvienience (re: robbery) of taxation is well worth it.
Originally posted by backdoorman
In what way would a nation that based its morals on Objectivism be ineffective? Or at lest less effective than say, the US?
that is much like asking me "In what ways would a nation based off the morals of Marxist communism be ineffective?"
my answer to both is very generally the same. Human nature messes it up. There is a point where some people will move, against their own interests and societies, in ways that are damaging to people.
I also think Rand lived at a time before the powers of corporations could rival those of States, which I do not think she would be opposed to, but it does change the balance.
Understand, I am a huge fan of Rand, and agree morally with every word she says. However, as I am a technocrat (notice the small t, indicating that I apply the same scientific logic to issues of state as I would to other issues, not that I believe in a post-capitalist techno-utopia) and a pragmatist, I need to look at politics not in the light of morality, but of efficacy. Yes, lots of capital would be raised, but it would be at the expense of the poor. Sure, it is their own fault for not having money, but when every major social problem of western society stems from poverty and disillusionment, its not effictive.