National heath care has arrived (Political)

You can talk about "almost" anything here.

Moderator: Falconer

Locked
User avatar
Flambeaux
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by Flambeaux »

TheRedPriest wrote:
Flambeaux wrote:
T. Foster wrote:Why do you think that? There are tons of examples in the U.S. of private and public systems existing alongside one another. Why would healthcare be any different?
Because I don't trust statist to stop seizing power once they're given a chance.

Because I have concerns about freedom of religion in this country.

Because I think the American Experiment has failed and that the Republic is dead.
Rome. First Century BC. I agree.
Yup. 8)

At least we have cigars and D&D this time around. Well, for a while any way.

User avatar
Stonegiant
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 3647
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
Contact:

Post by Stonegiant »

Here is a link to the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)

LINK

For everyones FYI
I want to hear what you did in the dungeon, not the voting booth. Politics and rules minutia both bore me in my opinion.

The Stonegiant's Cave- Old school hand drawn maps and illustrations. I am taking commissions. Check me out on-
Blogger: https://thestonegiantscave.blogspot.com/
Deviant Art: https://www.deviantart.com/stonegiant81
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thestonegiantscave
Also you can email me at: stonegiant81@gmail.com

Dwayanu

Post by Dwayanu »

"Rome. First Century BC."

I was thoroughly mired in that frame of mind through most of 2008, selectively noting evidence of national decadence and loss of virtue. Most of what I heard from Sen. Obama before the Democratic primary was sewn up was a disturbing (to me) mix of leftist and religious boilerplate. On the other hand, I had a hard time suspending disbelief in the spectacle of Sen. McCain as the Republican nominee.

It looked to me like a Harvard Lampoon version of the Fall of Rome!

Out of a population of however many millions, these were the best we could muster?!

Now, I still think there's cause for deep concern ... but I also think I was looking at things with more pessimism than was reasonably warranted, that I was overly romantic in my view of previous eras.

It seems to me that we had a spectacularly unusual wealth of great leadership in our Revolution and early Union. It also seems to me that the Founders wrought well enough for the Republic to survive many times such difficulties as we face today. The way is there, and I do not think the will has been extinguished; that is not what I see when I look at my neighbors without the prejudices of punditry over my eyes.

User avatar
T. Foster
GRUMPY OLD GROGNARD
Posts: 12395
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:37 pm
Contact:

Post by T. Foster »

Flambeaux wrote:
T. Foster wrote:Why do you think that? There are tons of examples in the U.S. of private and public systems existing alongside one another. Why would healthcare be any different?
Because I don't trust statist to stop seizing power once they're given a chance.

Because I have concerns about freedom of religion in this country.

Because I think the American Experiment has failed and that the Republic is dead.
Thanks for your candid response. Alas, your position is so far divorced from my perception of reality that I doubt there's enough common ground for meaningful future conversation on the topic. But at least we still have D&D in common :)
The Mystical Trash Heap - blog about D&D and other 80s pop-culture
The Heroic Legendarium - my book of 1E-compatible rules expansions and modifications, now available for sale at DriveThruRPG

User avatar
AxeMental
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 15103
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:38 am
Location: Florida

Post by AxeMental »

T. Foster wrote:
Flambeaux wrote:
The Icemaiden wrote:It wont mean the end of the private/free market healthcare system, private health is still readily available here, so I dont see why it would in the States, the two systems can work in tandem.
This, for me, is the crux of the matter. I don't believe our politicians will allow a private system to coexist alongside the government-mandated system.

They'll tax and regulate the competition out of existence in the name of equality.

And that's why some of us in the US are so incensed about this.
Why do you think that? There are tons of examples in the U.S. of private and public systems existing alongside one another. Why would healthcare be any different?
Your dreaming Foster, a two class system would be labeled racist and unethical 2 weeks after its inception ("Hey why is Trent Foster able to get his hip replacement in a week and Joe B has to wait 8 months"). Class warfare and racism are two cards easily played in American politics. Hell, we already saw this arguement presented in this very thread about the current care system of inequality (essentially, its morally wrong and immoral if the level of care is not exactly the same for the rich guy as it is for the poor guy", and that is exactly what a two tear system would do).

Anyhow, any govt. entity built to support this system would soon sap any savings created (just as HMOs do today, but far worse) and you'd still have to deal with lower income for doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. The two teared system would be a foot in the door that would quickly be followed by the other.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson in letter to Madison

Back in the days when a leopard could grab and break your Australopithecus (gracile or robust) nek and drag you into the tree as a snack, mankind has never had a break"
** Stone Giant

User avatar
Flambeaux
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 4584
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by Flambeaux »

T. Foster wrote:Thanks for your candid response. Alas, your position is so far divorced from my perception of reality that I doubt there's enough common ground for meaningful future conversation on the topic. But at least we still have D&D in common :)
No doubt, which is why I don't usually jump into these threads. I recognize how idiosyncratic my views are, and the above isn't the half of it. :lol:

So I'm going to go back to my little corner and continue to enjoy the excellent ale around here. 8)

I think this recent post by Jeff T. sums up my attitude.

I freely admit I have no idea if there is enough common ground in other areas of life for genuine friendship to arise. But I hope to have the opportunity to find out with each of you at some point in this life.
Last edited by Flambeaux on Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TRP
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 13023
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Post by TRP »

T. Foster wrote:
Flambeaux wrote:
T. Foster wrote:Why do you think that? There are tons of examples in the U.S. of private and public systems existing alongside one another. Why would healthcare be any different?
Because I don't trust statist to stop seizing power once they're given a chance.

Because I have concerns about freedom of religion in this country.

Because I think the American Experiment has failed and that the Republic is dead.
Thanks for your candid response. Alas, your position is so far divorced from my perception of reality that I doubt there's enough common ground for meaningful future conversation on the topic. But at least we still have D&D in common :)
Except for the second one, "freedom of religion", I share flambeaux's concerns. As Meatloaf told us, "Two out of three ain't baaaaad."

And yes, we'll always have Pari... errr... D&D. :D

Werral
Grognard
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Italy

Post by Werral »

Axe, most communist regimes believed in capital punishment. DOes that mean that capital punishment is "socialist"? (In a sense it is, sine the state has the power to take away your life).

What I'm trying to say is that public healthcare is not "socialism": Hell even Thatcher said "The NHS is safe with us". Was she a socialist?

Flambeaux - ina public healthcare4 system everyone who opts for private healthcare saves the system money - they still pay in in money, but are less of a burden in the services they consume (less, not non,e in the UK you mifght see a private doctor in a public hospital, or the private doctor might have trained in the public system, or you might "mix-and-match" geting some drugs privately and most healthcare publiccly).

Why would Statists disaprove of people that give them more money to play with? It 'd be like... I don't know people who are anti-abortion and anti-hoomosexual (when having more homosexuals would actually reduce abortions.

Dwayanu

Post by Dwayanu »

The really pertinent question, I think, is not, "Is this socialism?" but, "Do I approve of it?" Not many folks get all bent out of shape about "socialized fire fighting" and so on.

IIRC, in the late 1940s when Labour (an unapologetically socialist party) was in power in the UK, the Conservatives did not object to nationalized health care, public subsidies for improving the housing of the poor, or many other initiatives that would draw fire from our (U.S.) Liberal right wing today. They did oppose continuing and expanding nationalization of coal mines, transportation, and so on.

I don't see why the inevitable "class warfare" should figure any more prominently than in existing situations. If you've got the money, you can hire private guards to supplement police protection, hire a private criminal defense attorney instead of depending on a public defender, get education in a private rather than a public school, ride in an automobile or aircraft instead of taking the train, and suit yourself in a host of other ways.

"Levelers" really don't get much traction, because (from what I've seen) the typical American (A) entertains at some level the dream of being remarkably rich; and (B) has higher priorities -- or else he'd be doing whatever it takes to amass a fortune -- so that envy is not a great driving force.

I don't see many people buying the false dichotomy that our only options are either to impose an unnatural equality or to do nothing to assist the less fortunate. There's significant (if inadequate by advocates' measures) support for public aid to fight poverty abroad, even as there's a strong desire to improve conditions at home.

It's easy to get a skewed perception if one's interaction with American society is via atypical channels. The political arena is one example of a subculture that's pretty much self-selected for eccentricity.

(I think we might actually end up with better government by drafting eligible citizens at random for many positions.)

Theoretically, I see how a two-track system for insurance could produce more competitive pressure. If it's not compulsory to join the public plan, then it and the private firms would be competing. The main advantage of the government fund would be that customers are also shareholders -- so the "profit" concept is a bit different. How to isolate the program so its fund is neither raided nor increased with taxes (which would screw up the market model) might be tricky.

Better than that, I think, would be private organizations along the line of credit unions. Compulsory participation seems rather to the point of setting up a state medical insurance program.

User avatar
PapersAndPaychecks
Admin
Posts: 8881
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:44 pm
Location: Location, Location.

Post by PapersAndPaychecks »

I was just reading a thread on another (non-RPG-related) forum and I've come across a lady who takes allegra daily and, lacking insurance, has to pay $3 a pill.

She works in a pet shop for minimum wage, so it takes her half an hour a day to earn enough money to pay for essential medicines.

I've got to say that any government that allowed that kind of thing in Europe would be fired by the voters at the next general election -- and there'd likely be rioting in the streets.

We do pay a charge for drugs, at least if we earn enough to pay taxes, but there's a legal cap on the amount a private citizen can be forced to pay and the government has to cover the difference.
OSRIC
Ten years old -- and still no kickstarter!

User avatar
TRP
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 13023
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Post by TRP »

I dunno, I have to work about an hour to feed my family for a day. Eating is fairly fundamental to continued life. Should I riot because my gov't assumes I should pay for food? How is the right to medicine superior to the right for food?

User avatar
AxeMental
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 15103
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:38 am
Location: Florida

Post by AxeMental »

For Werral: "Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state, often by force, against the will of the previous owner".


"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."

I'd say they are pretty much the same, wouldn' t you Werral?
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson in letter to Madison

Back in the days when a leopard could grab and break your Australopithecus (gracile or robust) nek and drag you into the tree as a snack, mankind has never had a break"
** Stone Giant

User avatar
Algolei
(within reason)
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:10 pm

Post by Algolei »

AxeMental wrote:Alg: "I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Pro-socialists never mention serious reinvestigations into how to make drug development cheaper or the practice of medicine less expensive?" You can't possibly mean that, so I must be reading it wrong."


Hmmm!! seems to be missing from the debate at the moment (that is keeping the private system private by reducing costs threw massive tort reform, FDA reform, and anything else the medical providers can think of). Infact, what little debate that did occur had nothing to do with tort reform or anything that would lower the cost for the provider.


Not to put all the blame on our pinko liberal Democrats, the Republicans didn't do this either to the degree needed (I agree with Sean on this, the Republicans turned out to be a huge disappointment to me in 94'. Even if they did have to deal with a hostile press and Clinton, they squandered their momentum and agenda. Reagan used to talk directly to the American people, thats what they needed to do, daily...assuming they were sincere in the first place).
I don't think you're using the word "pro-socialist" the way I understand it, then. How to make drug development cheaper or the practice of medicine less expensive is one of the top debates among pro-socialists. Maybe you've forgotten the rest of the world still exists, though. :lol:
Alg, sometimes I really wish we'd taken over Canada in the past
America tried invading Canada, remember? Lucky for everyone, it failed! :wink: The South would REALLY be outnumbered on election day!

User avatar
AxeMental
Uber-Grognard
Posts: 15103
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:38 am
Location: Florida

Post by AxeMental »

Dw: "The really pertinent question, I think, is not, "Is this socialism?" but, "Do I approve of it?" Not many folks get all bent out of shape about "socialized fire fighting" and so on."

I appreciate your candid admission that what nationalizing health care in this country is actually socialism, and that the question shouldn't be "is it" but rather "why not"...is socialism bad?

That is a fare question.

The inevitable class warfare you discuss hasn't happened in this country because many of those well to do around you came from humble beginnings. Of those in good professions that I personally know probably half came from poverty or near poverty childhoods. The wealthiest person I know came from dirt. My wifes family growing up in West Virginia had a shack for a house (all shared one room), an outhouse and no running water until she was in highschool. They are all well off, her brother is making around 300K a year making computer gambling programs for a company and installing them around the world. In America if you go to school (its free) work hard, attend college (take out low interest loans if you must) get a job after word (and pay off those lones) the loweliest person can rise to the top. Its called hard work, and getting a skill in something that is needed. Its why vocational schools for things like AC repair, electricians, plumbing, mechanics etc. etc. are so popular, because they are needed and make a relatively good living without alot of training (relative to say a Doctor, or Archetect).

"Class warfare" as you put it, is a tool to manipulate people to do things you want them to do. It breeds hate and jealousy, and relies on base emmotion rather then rational thinking to work. It was the tool of the communists all over the world, and installed dictators and harsh regimes.

You forget something very basic Dw, those of us who are capitalists and pro-free market believe that that system is the best one (of all the systems) to reduce poverty and improve social conditions. And, perhaps even more importantly, it is the system that allows the most personal freedom, the best chance of mobility from the poor class to the rich class (to the point that such classes no longer exist) and it results in people that are more self reliant (which has value...its part of self respect (nobody wants a handout).

I think alot of people who don't like the free market system don't partisipate in it. They don't give themselves the freedom to fail, and thus never are happy with where they are at. This overtime breeds contempt, "he has and I have not".

Socialism is bad Dw because it takes from those that produce (and create jobs in small businesses for the most part) and gives to the poor (rewarding them for not doing anything but supporting the system that gave to them). This creates a situation where the producer is so heavily taxed and regulated he can't make a profit and soon realizes its not worth the effort to stay in business (why if your profit is taken, yet you still have the huge risks and long work hours).

This reduces competition (as you have fewer providers of each catagory of product) which tends to drive up price witin each catagory. It also reduces choice (the company that made your favorite bread damnit went out of business, so your stuck with the kind you hate) and it removes jobs. The more people without jobs rely on the state for income, and loose self respect as they start accepting the handouts (eventually giving up on hope). Of course this also creates a block of people always willing to vote for the government giving out the handouts to stay in power, what other option does this population have? What a free market system hopes to do is allow its citizens to 1. get an education, 2. get work (and become skilled in it, thus attaining greater salary), 3. save, 4. start their own business, 5. hire people. That in a nut shell is the American Dream (though starting the business is optional).

Socialism runs down society into the dirt. So why does it keep popping its ugly head up? Because there are always people willing to exploit others to make themselves powerful and rich by exploiting class envy. Countless dictators and govt. aristocrats have done this throughout the centuries, infact this profession may pre-date prostitution (one of mankinds earliest free market professions). :wink:
Last edited by AxeMental on Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson in letter to Madison

Back in the days when a leopard could grab and break your Australopithecus (gracile or robust) nek and drag you into the tree as a snack, mankind has never had a break"
** Stone Giant

User avatar
PapersAndPaychecks
Admin
Posts: 8881
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:44 pm
Location: Location, Location.

Post by PapersAndPaychecks »

TheRedPriest wrote:I dunno, I have to work about an hour to feed my family for a day. Eating is fairly fundamental to continued life. Should I riot because my gov't assumes I should pay for food? How is the right to medicine superior to the right for food?
Because everyone has to work for food, but only the weak and the sick have to work for medicine; and I think a decent society is one that looks after its weak and its sick.
OSRIC
Ten years old -- and still no kickstarter!

Locked