Good intentions by themselves mean nothing. Everyone thinks they have good intentions, but clearly not all outcomes could be deemed good. Such is the case with the things you have protected. The very system devised to "protect" and "provide" has been demonstrably shown to do the opposite. The system facilitates the very issues it wishes to solve, it exasperates them.
chfaunce wrote:Well, I'd probably leave socialized medicine out of the debate (sorry for the threadjack). While I am aware that it's being pushed by the Democrats, I really don't see it as a political issue in and of itself. I've found that the people that are usually most vocal against "socialized" medicine are usually the ones with a health care plan, even if it's a crappy HMO. And, I'm not particularly thrilled with our current 'system'. I pay a lot of money for the care I get, and I have insurance, and every year it seems I pay more for less. And, what a number of people don't seem to get it that a) people are going to get sick, b) people are going to eventually get care of some sort, even if it means going to a hospital ER where they won't be turned away, the care of which costs a premium, and c) people like us that can pay are already, in one way or the other, paying for those that can't pay anyway. The hospitals can't collect because those people are eventually declared indigents. We, the people who 'have', are still paying. Yeah, you are - there's a reason why it costs people like us $35 for a Tylenol (or something almost that ridiculous) when we go to the hospital. So, it's really just a matter of who pays, and when we pay it. Because, we pay - either with taxes, or our fancy pants insurance policies. The hospitals would close otherwise, and then we'd all be farked.
Please explain why it is not a political issue. Both parties use similar laws to "buy" voters by giving them something for "free."
Are you arguing that the character of the American people is so devoid of love for our fellow man that we would not and have not cared for those in need? I would suggest otherwise. The problems you speak of are causes of government regulation and bureaucracy. Before government decided to interject itself in the private affairs of doctor and patient (this has been going on a long time), where were the cries about the health care problems?
There are always cases of misfortune, such is the human condition. However, I'm asking about systematic failures like we see today.
The single, largest flaw with our system in this country is that health care is not about care at all - it's about making a buck.
Are you arguing that doctors, nurses, etc. do not deserve to make a living, have families to provide for, etc.? Of course not. They deserve to make money, but just not the health care system. The enemy is always just a mindless blob.
The system isn't about "making a buck," it is about providing valuable services that others are willing to pay for in exchange, just like any other business. High prices exist because there either is insufficient supply to satisfy demand or the government has artificially restricted competition and/or regulated those prices in some manor. A high price implies the services are valuable and there is money to be made by those with the talent to fulfill the needs. More talent fulfilling the needs is an increase in supply. If supply ever exceeds demand, cost comes down through competition. As long as supply is less than demand, high prices bring resources from other parts of the economy into this sector, but that comes at a cost to other less profitable sectors.
The free market system isn't about greed, but rather free exchange of goods and services. It is the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources (labor is a resource) of any kind, including health care. In a fantasy world with no resource limitations, prices would be uniformly low (practically zero) because there would be no need to allocate scarce resources at all. Everyone would have everything they need and desire. Nothing new of value would be needed. In such a world we wouldn't need money as a common denominator of value, we wouldn't need to barter or work. We do these things because we always have insufficient resources available to meet demand.
We efficient allocate resources to a huge variety of human needs. The government can not do this because everyone's needs and desires are different. The free market system allows for and actually uses this diversity of needs and desires to allocate resources efficiently. As I said, we do not have such a system today, but we do "harness" some aspects of it; a house divided can not stand and such it is with the free market system. A market with force, coercion and fraud is not free, even if it is codified by law.
High prices either are indication that more of something is needed and they entice resources from other sectors or force is being used to manipulate the price.
While it happens in a few cases that care would not be rendered without government coercion (as they still are whenever you don't fall into a neat regulation bin), it certainly was not the norm in America.
The question is, what entitles you to the sweat and blood of another labor and materials? Let's not confuse the issue, those machines don't build themselves, those computers don't program themselves, doctors/nurses don't train themselves or have no worldly concerns for their next meal.
The system isn't a free market. Insurance companies do #5 too. They have carved out huge tracts of law that allow them to deny claims, dump coverage, no competition, etc. The very same government proclaiming to solve health care (how many times has it been, I've lost track?) is the same government who worked with insurance companies to get those special provisions. While Washington may claim they screwed the insurance companies for good, the biggest profiteer of the "reform" is those same insurance companies who are basically guaranteed a profit by the government. Everyone has to purchase from them, there is no opting out and choosing alternatives (like co-ops). They are guaranteed a customer base and the government is assuming their risk.
That is the problem. Government doing things it shouldn't! It invites corruption.
I dunno - I guess some people would have it as, sorry, no Aetna, no care. Please go die. Personally, I have a problem with that.
Don't play this card, you know as well as I do that doesn't happen systematically. Even before we passed a law making it illegal. Bottom line is American's have been some of the most generous people on the planet to the less fortunate, without the government doing it by force.
I have no real issue with Welfare or Social Security in principle...
Please explain this. SS was sold originally to help just the widowed and such from starving (how many of you would let your grandmother starve? Just curious), then it was expanded as a retirement plan for all. Just like mandating you buy health insurance, the government thinks it knows best how to spend your money. Arguing what/how they spend it is a red herring. The bottom line is that we are free men and the government doesn't own us. To make claim and take by force (I don't recall any option to not have these withheld from my paycheck and if my employer ever tried...) that which is not rightfully yours is to steal it. To do so under the guise of sound government is to reduce us to slaves which serve the state and its purposes, not our own. That is contrary to our American ideals and way of life.
All of your arguments assume that it is the governments role to provide for the people and not our own. Please clarify if that is what you are suggesting.
). As poor a selection as she was, McCain ended up having a surprisingly effective campaign! I'm sure there were also white people who voted for McCain because they'd prefer to see hell freeze over before seeing a black man in charge. Just sayin'. And to those I say, "Pfffft, just vote for his white half!" 
