Well, actually, there seems to be some legitimate dispute about this, taking 'McDonald's pay' as being minimum wage.
I'll see if can find a link to the book that discusses this...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Split - Politics of space exploration
- Thread starter MacRumorSkeptic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, actually, there seems to be some legitimate dispute about this, taking 'McDonald's pay' as being minimum wage.
I'll see if can find a link to the book that discusses this...
For this, I may be in agreement with you. The only caveat is that is must cost the same, or less as it is now with private healthcare. If there is a rise in cost, people will not support this, and it would never happen.
I think that you underestimate how our system works. I believe that eligibility for welfare is based on how much you make, not how much you have in the bank, as it's based partly or fully on your income tax returns. If it were simply a matter of how much you had in the bank, I know a lot more people who would be on welfare, simply because they live paycheck to paycheck.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work" Karl Marx on the first stage of Communism - what we call Socialism. Sorry I couldn't resist.
And now we're getting somewhere!
From everything I've read, analysts believe that if there were a national health care system, the average amount of money spent per capita on health care would drop to a fraction of what it is now. And do you know where a huge portion of that money is spent on health care is in the form of emergency care for people who currently don't have (ie can't afford) health care. That money coming from tax dollars now, because hospitals are obligated by law to provide emergency care to everyone who walks in their doors, and that law is subsidized by tax dollars.
Now, if those same tax dollars were used to provide a basic health care system, most of those people wouldn't end up needing emergency care (which is as much as ten times more expensive than preventative care). So, yes, from what I've read, although there may be an initial increase in cost (during the overlap of emergency and regular care), in fairly short order the net cost of health care would be the same or less.
you miss understand me a bit.
i am just trying to make the point that there could possibly be people out there that say, "i can't afford HC," but in fact, they can if they do not subscribe to these luxuries. not everyone, not the majority, but i guarantee there is a lot of people out there who spend more than they can afford, and sacrifice HC instead of a want.
Well, granted. You can never make a system that is completely fool proof, as fools are just so clever. There will always be those that try to take advantage of the system, and the only way to prevent that would be to have a system like what Frohickey seems to advocate, where there wouldn't be anything to take advantage of. IMO, however, this would be punishing the relative majority that would honestly benefit from the system in an attempt to get at the minority that would try to take advantage of the system.
I'd rather have the system and simply work to catch the abusers...
Well I am officially sick of this thread, but before I give up on it entirely, here are two observations:
(1) All taxes redistribute wealth. This is their purpose, and it doesn't matter whether they're called "fees" or "levies" or little green apples. Word games are for word game players. The rest of us have to live in the world, breath air, etc.
(2) I noticed that none of our "get sick and die" contingent were interested in participating in the thread I started a week or so ago, "Report Urges U.S. to Work On Better Health Coverage" that provided statistical evidence for the gross ineffectiveness of our present health care system (in terms of making Americans healthy, at least), and the long term negative impacts on our economy caused by the steadily growing millions of uninsured people. No, we wouldn't want to debate this issue within hailing distance of any pertinent facts, now would we? Well I understand. The article also included an uncomfortable quote from Bob Dole (the old commie) coming out strongly in favor of health care for all Americans. No, I wouldn't expect the "get sick and die" folks to acknowledge anything of that kind. It would only show what a narrow and radical ideology they cling to. Finally, they were invited into this thread to tell one of the posters with a serious illness and no health insurance that they deserved to die. Well, if that's what you believe, then why not say it somebody's face? Not even to their virtual face? That shouldn't take too much courage, should it? As in, the courage of your convictions?
Apparently it does. To that I can only say, if your convictions don't give you courage, maybe it's time to look for a new set of convictions.
(1) All taxes redistribute wealth. This is their purpose, and it doesn't matter whether they're called "fees" or "levies" or little green apples. Word games are for word game players. The rest of us have to live in the world, breath air, etc.
(2) I noticed that none of our "get sick and die" contingent were interested in participating in the thread I started a week or so ago, "Report Urges U.S. to Work On Better Health Coverage" that provided statistical evidence for the gross ineffectiveness of our present health care system (in terms of making Americans healthy, at least), and the long term negative impacts on our economy caused by the steadily growing millions of uninsured people. No, we wouldn't want to debate this issue within hailing distance of any pertinent facts, now would we? Well I understand. The article also included an uncomfortable quote from Bob Dole (the old commie) coming out strongly in favor of health care for all Americans. No, I wouldn't expect the "get sick and die" folks to acknowledge anything of that kind. It would only show what a narrow and radical ideology they cling to. Finally, they were invited into this thread to tell one of the posters with a serious illness and no health insurance that they deserved to die. Well, if that's what you believe, then why not say it somebody's face? Not even to their virtual face? That shouldn't take too much courage, should it? As in, the courage of your convictions?
Apparently it does. To that I can only say, if your convictions don't give you courage, maybe it's time to look for a new set of convictions.
Much as I hate to quote myself, I said this very thing on page one
and again on page 4.
You didn't seem too interested in agreeing then, you wanted to debate semantics. Why the change 5 pages later?
Last points before I'm outta here too...
I think the resistance by some conservatives to address this issue is the fear that a "universal healthcare system" will not achieve what is promised, but will result in a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy which in effect nationalizes a somewhat private industry, limits everyone's choices to a minimum amount of care, and does little if anything to police abuses (see: illegal immigration). Not to say that's what would inevitably result, but it might.
Plus, there is the "slippery slope" argument that, well, if we're guaranteed a right to "the pursuit of happiness", could that mean for example that taxpayers should finance an aspiring model/ actor's liposuction, facelift, or stomach reduction surgery? Could not some lawyer argue that to deny this is to deny not only a better lifestyle, but potential employment? I know that's not what you guys are arguing for, but what seems preposterous at first might not seem so in a decade.
I think I've made it clear I don't want poor people to die. Maybe preventive care, even at taxpayer expense, would be cheaper than the current system. If conservatives could be convinced of that, I doubt there'd be much argument from that quarter.
Sorry I misquoted Marx. As I said, it's been a long time...
IJ, the reason I've stayed away from your healthcare thread is that it's not the debate I was interested in the first place, but I guess I'm probably as guilty as any in allowing the drift to continue. However, I'll take a look at the thread out of curiosity... and to see if Rower has had to shut it down yet
I gotta go now and check the news about Opportunity...
I think the resistance by some conservatives to address this issue is the fear that a "universal healthcare system" will not achieve what is promised, but will result in a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy which in effect nationalizes a somewhat private industry, limits everyone's choices to a minimum amount of care, and does little if anything to police abuses (see: illegal immigration). Not to say that's what would inevitably result, but it might.
Plus, there is the "slippery slope" argument that, well, if we're guaranteed a right to "the pursuit of happiness", could that mean for example that taxpayers should finance an aspiring model/ actor's liposuction, facelift, or stomach reduction surgery? Could not some lawyer argue that to deny this is to deny not only a better lifestyle, but potential employment? I know that's not what you guys are arguing for, but what seems preposterous at first might not seem so in a decade.
I think I've made it clear I don't want poor people to die. Maybe preventive care, even at taxpayer expense, would be cheaper than the current system. If conservatives could be convinced of that, I doubt there'd be much argument from that quarter.
Sorry I misquoted Marx. As I said, it's been a long time...
IJ, the reason I've stayed away from your healthcare thread is that it's not the debate I was interested in the first place, but I guess I'm probably as guilty as any in allowing the drift to continue. However, I'll take a look at the thread out of curiosity... and to see if Rower has had to shut it down yet
I gotta go now and check the news about Opportunity...
ever think i may have changed my stance a bit? i don't think i have made a 180, as my reasoning behind no NHC system is that i do not want a reduced level of care. if there is a basic coverage, and i still get my advanced care, with no waiting, no stupid new gov. crap, no higher price, i am for it. if it makes me wait a month, if i get a reduced level of care, if it costs me more, i am not for it.
Actually, we're not. That's from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution.
As to the slippery slope, that argument seems to me to be that we shouldn't do what's right today because it would place us in a position to be tempted to do what's wrong tomorrow. I'm inclined to leave tomorrow's decisions for tomorrow, and just work to make the right decision today.
So have you been reading Amitai Etzioni? I like what he says about "slippery slope" arguments. It's pretty much what you've said.
Etzioni is the godfather of Communitarianism. If you enjoy his blog, you might look up one of his books, like "The Spirit of Community."
I understand your point about "slippery slope" arguments, but I can't agree. I don't think it's about not doing what's right today out of fear of doing the wrong thing tomorrow. I believe it's about thinking through what you're about to do, and considering the implications of your logic. I think it's about staying consistent, setting a framework around which to build, not building haphazardly and hoping the end result will still stand. It is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason. I think if your foundation isn't consistent from the start, then the results can be like a M$ OS.
Certainly I can't speak for all conservatives, but from what I see, they are the ones who will question -- for example, and hopefully not to get farther off-topic -- if we accept the argument for a 2-week "cooling off" period to purchase firearms, why is not a 4-week "cooling off" twice as good? And so on...
Sorry to confuse "unalienable Rights", which our government was formed to secure, with a "guarantee". Guess I'm not intellectual enough to see much difference, so I'll bow out now and let you professionals handle this.
Certainly I can't speak for all conservatives, but from what I see, they are the ones who will question -- for example, and hopefully not to get farther off-topic -- if we accept the argument for a 2-week "cooling off" period to purchase firearms, why is not a 4-week "cooling off" twice as good? And so on...
Sorry to confuse "unalienable Rights", which our government was formed to secure, with a "guarantee". Guess I'm not intellectual enough to see much difference, so I'll bow out now and let you professionals handle this.
Well, I don't think that this is inconsistent with my argument. As I see it, we are really talking about walking a fine line between two slippery slopes. On the one hand, there is the slippery slope of making people feel entitled to get every little luxury for free (at the extreme end). On the other hand, there is the slippery slope of providing no protections for the lower classes, where the poor are left to die, usurped, made to work as indentured servents, made to work in sweat shops, etc. These are the two extremes that are at the 'bottom' of the slippery slopes. So we're walking a fine line, trying to find the right balance between the two. In that context, making the argument that we shouldn't do something that is right (and by my argument is a better place for the balance) because it moves us in the direction of one of the slippery slopes is a highly flawed argument.
In fact, in this country, we are always on a pendulum. We gradually swing toward one 'slope', then back toward the other. Personally, I think that there is a good, balanced place to be that includes a basic national hc plan.
Well I believe that the "slippery slope" is one of the most paralyzing arguments you can make in a democracy. It's an excuse for inaction, made for the most part by those who benefit from inaction, otherwise known as the status quo. We have institutions that are supposed to mediate what is far enough and what is too far. Have we forgotten how to use them? Not quite, but nearly. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons so many important issues in our country end up being settled by the courts.
Should be something to ponder.
Should be something to ponder.
I think what we have here is that some people value another person's life more than someone else's life/money.
The ones that espouse NHC and wish that everyone be MADE to pay into it, under punishment of jail or death ("nulla lege sine poena", thanks for the link, idkew) clearly value the unfortunate ones that can't afford their own health care. But do these unfortunate ones care about their own health care, if they have their cable tv, cell phone, automobile, etc?
Lets say that after college, med school, internships, countless symposiums and research projects later (and incurring a lifetime of effort and perseverance and family fortune), I was able to find the cure to the common hangover, should I be made (under punishment of jail or death) to make such a cure available for free, to all?
What if the cure was for the common flu?
What if the cure was for Cancer?
What if the cure was for Alzheimers?
What if the cure was for AIDS?
The ones that espouse NHC and wish that everyone be MADE to pay into it, under punishment of jail or death ("nulla lege sine poena", thanks for the link, idkew) clearly value the unfortunate ones that can't afford their own health care. But do these unfortunate ones care about their own health care, if they have their cable tv, cell phone, automobile, etc?
Lets say that after college, med school, internships, countless symposiums and research projects later (and incurring a lifetime of effort and perseverance and family fortune), I was able to find the cure to the common hangover, should I be made (under punishment of jail or death) to make such a cure available for free, to all?
What if the cure was for the common flu?
What if the cure was for Cancer?
What if the cure was for Alzheimers?
What if the cure was for AIDS?
Make that into this:
and you're damn right I do. Money is nothing. It's absolutely nothing. It's ****ing green paper. Life is life. There is no parallel.
Or some people believe that the money people earn is property of the whole.
I agree, money means little in the scheme of things, but why do you all want to take it from others if it means so little?
I agree, money means little in the scheme of things, but why do you all want to take it from others if it means so little?
Money is green paper... actually, money is the value given for goods and services, the physical manifestation of which is the green paper, though, it could very well be a herd of cattle, a few shiny gold coins, etc.
If money is nothing, and life is life, and there is no parallel, why is money so important for you to take from others in order to give to another? They have life, you have life, I have life. Money is nothing, so if they don't have money, since money is nothing, they don't have nothing. And if I have money, and money is nothing, then I have nothing.
You are going through a lot of logical contortions in order to justify taking someone else's property in your mistaken quest to do good by others. A more coherent thought would be to celebrate and protect someone else's property to do with as they please, which includes giving it away to do good by others.
"The ends never justify the means"
Originally posted by Frohickey
Money is green paper... actually, money is the value given for goods and services, the physical manifestation of which is the green paper, though, it could very well be a herd of cattle, a few shiny gold coins, etc.
If money is nothing, and life is life, and there is no parallel, why is money so important for you to take from others in order to give to another? They have life, you have life, I have life. Money is nothing, so if they don't have money, since money is nothing, they don't have nothing. And if I have money, and money is nothing, then I have nothing.
You are going through a lot of logical contortions in order to justify taking someone else's property in your mistaken quest to do good by others. A more coherent thought would be to celebrate and protect someone else's property to do with as they please, which includes giving it away to do good by others.
"The ends never justify the means"
I think the point is that money, when compared to the value of life, is nothing. So, if you consider a life to be worth one trillion dollars, for example, and you have one hundred dollars that could be used to save Joe Bloe's life, that would be trading one hundred dollars for something worth one trillion dollars, and the world as a whole has gained an incredible amount.
Now, I'll freely grant that this is a hollow argument because it doesn't look at any other circumstances, but it's only intended to demonstrate the principle.