Yet another healthcare topic

[Kai]

Cf. what I said in the libertarian thread about MLS. It applies here as well.

There are several reasons that Rome fell, the biggest being the amount of internal cheating and "everyone for themselves" and "fuck you I got mine".

I see the US going the same way if something doesn't change. The European Union, which is far more aligned with the historical perspective of humans, will eventually overtake us.

And I think that's a good thing.

[Elder Iptuous]

Cf. what I said in the libertarian thread about MLS. It applies here as well.

There are several reasons that Rome fell, the biggest being the amount of internal cheating and "everyone for themselves" and "fuck you I got mine".

I see the US going the same way if something doesn't change. The European Union, which is far more aligned with the historical perspective of humans, will eventually overtake us.

And I think that's a good thing.

I totally agree with you that we are going the same way as Rome, from what i've seen/read....  I am not so certain that the EU, from what i have read is going to fare significantly better....

when you say 'historical perspective', are you talking about the hunter gatherer groups that you refer to in the other post?  because i don't think that applies to larger scale societies.  all the larger societies in history that i know of have a much greater degree of 'fuck you, i got mine' than that...

[BabylonHoruv]

I've thought about that model before, of services only provided to those that choose to pay taxes.

The problem is that the tiny number of people who have 95% of the wealth are going to be the ones who don't want to pay taxes in exchange for services.

They wont have that money long with no police protecting it and no access to the public roadways.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

[BabylonHoruv]

It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

That sounds fantastic.  if the several states are able to successfully implement social medicine according to the desires of their citizens, then more people would get what they want, there would be less people forced to do what they don't want, and there would be competition between the socialized medicine structures used, that would work to refine them further.
why isn't this possibility being enacted by those that support socialized medicine?
and why isn't it being raised as an argument against a federal system by those opposed?

One of the major draw backs to doing it at the local level instead of federal is that the states that need it the most already don't have enough money. Some places in the Deep South have health care systems that are barely better than third world countries and don't have enough taxes coming in to cover everyone who needs it. A federal system would make it easy to pool resources and get help to where it is needed the most. Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

But the red states are the ones that don't want federal health care.

[BabylonHoruv]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Could just have park rangers occasionally do an ID check.  Any Free Citizens who were found in the park without having purchased a pass would be fined.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

I haven't seen that effect here. Relocating is expensive and difficult; moreso when you're poor and sick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Could just have park rangers occasionally do an ID check.  Any Free Citizens who were found in the park without having purchased a pass would be fined.

No, really. You have to be kidding me.

There are a tiny number of park rangers (paid for by who, again?) compared to the vast amount of public land, and "Free Citizens" would just take their chances since the odds are pretty fucking good.

Do you know how many rangers we have patrolling the Oregon Coastline, for example? This is with everyone paying. Make taxes voluntary and that guy can kiss his job goodbye.

And just by going outside and walking on OUR clean sidewalks under OUR streetlights, breathing relatively smog-free air paid for through OUR clean energy initiatives, they are receiving benefits WE paid for without any way of enforcing that they pay their share.

No, the only solution would be to give "Free Citizens" their own state and let them run it into the ground.

[Maria]

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, it just occurred to me that since the election system is paid for with tax money, under the ludricrous system in discussion, "Free Citizens" would have to pay a fee to be allowed to vote.

 

I really, really want someone to try this experiment now. It'd only be funny for a little while, unfortunately.

[Maria]

Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

I agree 100%... except I would make one modification:

I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, unless they choose to.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.

[Freeky]

Wow, it just occurred to me that since the election system is paid for with tax money, under the ludricrous system in discussion, "Free Citizens" would have to pay a fee to be allowed to vote.

 

I really, really want someone to try this experiment now. It'd only be funny for a little while, unfortunately.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

[Maria]

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Yeah, but fuck consistency when it interferes with their notions of what's best for themselves.