How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Rhinox]

Hey guys. Did you know in 2003 Republicans overwhelmingly voted for "Death panels"?

well its true. Just further proves how the GOP is full of shit and wants to fuck over this country who flag they proudly wrap themselves with.

GOP Supported End-of-Life Counseling in 2003 Medicare Bill - Swampland - TIME.com

posted this in the other thread.

Any Board republicans care to comment?

[Marootsoobutsu]

Just so I can follow what you're saying. We should live and pray we are in the good graces of the rich so they can bless us with their charity? It really didn't work when reagan proposed it as we are finding out now. and it not gonna work this time. what you're suggesting is we live in a pseudo-neo feudalism where they provide the benefits, the wages, and as long as we keep making them money and keep our lords happy they will protect us with health care benefits.

Also the state by state thing would not work because quite frankly that would not solve the problem of the millions of uninsured. Also please do not tell me you're proposing as some idiot did that the federal government provide for the poor and homeless to move into states with a public option.

Lets be real here. Say your proposal did pass and it was up to the states. how is that fair? you're essentially setting up the public option to fail because if their is a exodus of sorts into these states they wouldn't be able to deal with said patients and it becomes everything what the conservatives nutjobs claim it would.

No, what I'm proposing is that the middle class in this country is more than capable of living better than damn near anyone in the history of the earth... EVER. If they live within their means and don't over-reach with credit card debt, they are fine. And EVERYONE in this country can reach comfortable middle class, if they put the effort into it, and seek help. There is enough charity to ensure that, though admittedly it's poorly distributed. The goal of charity is NOT for people to subsist on it; charity, in ANY stripe, is supposed to help you get back on your feet during an emergency, or during a period when you are just starting out. If you need charity for more than six years, you're doing it wrong. Strike out on your own, take a risk, be creative, innovative, dedicated, enthusiastic, whatever it takes to get ahead by your own initiative, not by someone else's charity or grace.

Quite apart from the right hating the poor, or holding them in contempt, I would generally submit that the right has a vastly higher opinion of the poor than the left. My stance is, "You can do it. I'll help you, and I'll help you seize your opportunities, but you have to be willing to work and sacrifice for it." The left's stance is generally, "You can't do it without help, because you are being oppressed by the rich, white people who hate you. Here's some of their wealth. Don't worry if you never get up; I know it's really hard, and not everyone should be expected to take initiative."

As for people migrating to states with good health care... that's a bad thing? Really? Let's say-- for argument's sake-- that California initiate's a state-wide health care along the lines of, say, France. France is about a quarter again the economic output, and half-again the population, so what France is able to put together, one can expect California to be able to do (Spain is probably closer, both in terms of population and economic output as a whole, but I'm less familiar with their health care system, and is less generally synonymous in its economic leadership and diversity). On the other hand, we'll leave Texas the way it is right now.

If California's policy succeeds, and does what the left hopes it would do, California's poor should, if not immediately, at least very soon experience better livelihoods, better quality of life, and have more opportunities. Huzzah! And, if THEY do, then more people would move there. Generally speaking, those willing to pick up and move to a new place for the sake of opportunity have at least shown initiative, so it's not unreasonable to expect they'll also be willing to work once given that opportunity; that's the primary reason for the United State's success over the last few centuries, so it doesn't seem that's too badly off the mark. When programs in California succeed, and succeed well, other states tend to adopt them. So, if it's really a great solution, and California pulls it off, California pulls ahead. Fantastic! Other states, needing to compete, would likely initiate similar programs, with the specifics detailed to their own local needs. Fantastic!

Let's say, though, that what happens is what the right expects. A political body ignorant of the real needs, and simply seeking positive soundbites on the 6 o'clock news screws things p, and badly. The system generally doesn't help the people most in need, is exploited by those least in need, costs far, far more than it is estimated to, thereby driving debt up to levels that 1920s Germany would balk at. A few things will probably happen. The wealthy tend to increase their relative wealth during times of crisis; the gap between rich and poor would *grow*, rather than shrink. Those looking to exploit the system would be the most likely to move in (they would almost certainly move in if the system worked, too, but in this scenario, those looking for opportunity are less likely to be drawn). Things go from already not-ideal to "Ohshi.... we screwed up."

Again, if a state the size of California, or Texas, is unable to organize things when they are faced with *vastly* fewer problems than organizing something on a national level across the United States, how on *earth* do you expect a corrupt, grossly inefficient federal government to do it right?

[Not not Mattaru]

To Maroo:

Labor: I am not saying people don't have rights to property. I am simply arguing the process of labor that Locke defines is specific enough that it justifies taking land from other people as long as you can define that they aren't actually putting labor into it.

I think that is a problem. It is a problem because it doesn't give value to certain peoples lifestyles and mode of survival. History is a testament to this across the globe using people like Locke and others. So when I say legacy of Locke I see influence on things like the Constitution, but I also see his influence on things like the greater colonial project and even genocide of Native Americans. Point being his philosophy had flaws that allowed for either to happen.

Liberty: Locke's argument is pretty simple. But, it is predicated by certain things - the devil is truly in the details. I mean, you even say it is suspended temporarily so that is not in question, and I am saying the point where you get it back is so ambiguous and so ethnocentric that it becomes dangerous. It did become dangerous and we shouldn't ignore the advances we have made to counteract that - things like labor laws for children, universal human rights that only require you are human - not a type of human who does certain things.

The only thing I had to clarify is what "reason" meant to Locke.

Life: I give you an example...using Locke's own words about how you can take away someone's livelihood which can and did lead to mass starvations and deaths. This was not something that is new, even Edmund Burke critiqued this type of thing when he talks about the importance of tradition that people have kinds of rights to. I may not be shooting people with a gun, but I may be giving them a smallpox blanket and saying 'survive'.

I seriously went to the Second Treatise of Government, pointed out problems using Locke's own words, and then provided a summary (tongue-in-cheek as it may have been) showing how when Locke "says" something it always has exceptions and other things predicating it that you can not ignore. You are basically reading something incompletely then running with it...

Um. My point is that Locke wasn't right. So...if I borrow your saying: if you are wrong you are wrong. You like to look at one side of the coin and I am pointing out there is another side of it that is equally important. Yes, Locke's ideas influenced our early fore fathers (who were not saints of course), but Locke's ideas also influenced and justified things like colonialism in Africa, India, wars in China, genocide of Native Americans etc. We can't just sweep that under the carpet. My point is that seeing that these legacies exist, I would rather have a philosophy that is engaged solely in the nicer of the two, Locke doesn't do that. And that is what centuries of intellectual history tries to do - improve. That is why the Constitution can be ammended, why even though Locke lays some fundamental protections from the state, Mill comes along later and tries to give protections from each other - minority rights, protection from the tyranny of the majority. To just point at Locke is to miss out on a complex history and progress of thought, recognize it for what it is good AND bad and move on from it.

When I bring up Locke's motivation and his historical position it is simply meant to show people can not say that Locke was not engaged in that type of behavior nor had anything to gain from the rampant and dangerous ambiguities in his philosophy.

Even though Foucault studies prisoners he is also studying the prison system more importantly, he studies the clinic/hospital not just patients and doctors, moreover his studies go beyond these which reference like two of his books among many.

Soooo unless you can go back to the Second Treatise and show Locke doesn't say things that he does you don't have much ground to stand on.

Guartz: I will respond later.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Again, if a state the size of California, or Texas, is unable to organize things when they are faced with *vastly* fewer problems than organizing something on a national level across the United States, how on *earth* do you expect a corrupt, grossly inefficient federal government to do it right?

Don't bother. I tried that shit for 3 pages. In one ear, and out the other.

[eunhye]

Sebelius: Public Health Care Option "Not The Essential Element"

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured. But he had not seen a not-for-profit co-op as sufficient to offer consumers choice and competition that would bring down the costs of private insurance.

wish i made that up.

[Not not Mattaru]

Mattaru, almost exclusively in all cases, the state hires out either former employees of private financial enterprises or directly contracts with private enterprises. U.S postal services comes as a good reminder for a historical lesson, perhaps even the railroads and the robber barons, when, the government does not employ those tactics. That being said, what are you suggesting?

As to your second paragraph, I'll contend that a social contract that is geographical and implicit is leaps and bounds compared to, say, a private contract between individuals or corporations. Furthermore, the state must maintain that the it is the highest agency of justice within its borders, claiming the social contract as the justification.

Just imagine, for a moment, if say, AT&T operated under these parameters. You'd get a call from the company, claiming that you are now within the borders of it's business operations and you are under a binding contract. You now have a choice between a 120 dollar service package or a 250 dollar service package. Furthermore the one chosen by the majority of your neighbors will be assigned to you. If you have an issue with this, you can contact your local AT&T service representative and petition the complaint, lead an armed uprising or leave our service area.

A) Yeah the government contracts people to do things etc. I am not arguing against that, I don't see why I should need to.

I guess you are trying to say that even the roles that make the governement seem like a financial institution etc. are taken care of by private firms etc. via contract. For the sake of argument, lets say that is in fact exclusively the case.

The government is therefore contracting people to do work it can not do, or someone can do for cheaper/better/more efficiently depending case to case - which in fact is something many corporations do. Many corporations work through other contracted organizations and it forms a nice web of interaction within the market. The government is another agent working inside of the market in that it is interconnected, it does not stand seperated.

I guess we have to start from the beginning though, because I want to see what your initial premises are that guide your thought-process here.

1. What is the market?
2. Why is the government inherently at odds with the market? If it is, which should be prioritized?


B) A point of clarification though, citizenship is not always geographic, it depends on a countries citizenship requirements - IE I can be born in a country and not be its citizen, I can live and work in another country and not be a citizen, or I can be a citizen but not a full citizen, I can hold dual citizenship etc.

Your AT&T analogy is kind of missing the point - all I would argue is that if you are in a contract with this quasi-AT&T you would have some basic things protected like the ability to petition, vote, etc. and specifics of the contract are up to a democratic process to decide and even if you don't like the result that is part of the contract as long as it doesn't violate the initial stipulations of the contract.

That isn't like some secret of democracy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What it seems like you want is complete freedom of choice and not be compelled to act in any other way, which thats nice for you, but its basically anarchy. So if what you want is anarchy just say that and we can continue. Well, or an absolute monarchy of you.

[Rhinox]

No, what I'm proposing is that the middle class in this country is more than capable of living better than damn near anyone in the history of the earth... EVER. If they live within their means and don't over-reach with credit card debt, they are fine. And EVERYONE in this country can reach comfortable middle class, if they put the effort into it, and seek help. There is enough charity to ensure that, though admittedly it's poorly distributed. The goal of charity is NOT for people to subsist on it; charity, in ANY stripe, is supposed to help you get back on your feet during an emergency, or during a period when you are just starting out. If you need charity for more than six years, you're doing it wrong. Strike out on your own, take a risk, be creative, innovative, dedicated, enthusiastic, whatever it takes to get ahead by your own initiative, not by someone else's charity or grace.

I'm sorry that is horseshit. For one you're contradicting yourself on the one hand you're saying as long as people don't reach beyond their means everything will be fine but at the end of this paragraph you're asking them to to take risks and be creative. secondly In essence what you're saying is along as everyone conforms and stays with the status quo everything will be peaches and cream. It is easy to claim that when you're at the top but for some of the estimated 35 million people in this country who live below the poverty line how is this acceptable? You tout charity as this be all end all quick fix to emergencies. But how often are these charities such as homeless shelters overfilled to capacity to the point where they're turning away families?

I personally find the idea of depending on the help of charity in emergencies pretty insulting. When I think of charity I see 40 year-old housewives of some rich guy with really nothing better to do then to tout how much money they gave to some obscure feed the children charity during their monday morning book club meeting. the fact that Human beings have to be pathetic enough in these peoples eyes for them to give a fuck says a lot about us as a fucking race.

Quite apart from the right hating the poor, or holding them in contempt, I would generally submit that the right has a vastly higher opinion of the poor than the left. My stance is, "You can do it. I'll help you, and I'll help you seize your opportunities, but you have to be willing to work and sacrifice for it." The left's stance is generally, "You can't do it without help, because you are being oppressed by the rich, white people who hate you. Here's some of their wealth. Don't worry if you never get up; I know it's really hard, and not everyone should be expected to take initiative."

Oh I see its tough love what the Right is doing to the poor. cutting wages and benefits along with denying basic health care is all for own good. its going to help build us character is that it? really guy?

As for people migrating to states with good health care... that's a bad thing? Really? Let's say-- for argument's sake-- that California initiate's a state-wide health care along the lines of, say, France. France is about a quarter again the economic output, and half-again the population, so what France is able to put together, one can expect California to be able to do (Spain is probably closer, both in terms of population and economic output as a whole, but I'm less familiar with their health care system, and is less generally synonymous in its economic leadership and diversity). On the other hand, we'll leave Texas the way it is right now.

If California's policy succeeds, and does what the left hopes it would do, California's poor should, if not immediately, at least very soon experience better livelihoods, better quality of life, and have more opportunities. Huzzah! And, if THEY do, then more people would move there. Generally speaking, those willing to pick up and move to a new place for the sake of opportunity have at least shown initiative, so it's not unreasonable to expect they'll also be willing to work once given that opportunity; that's the primary reason for the United State's success over the last few centuries, so it doesn't seem that's too badly off the mark. When programs in California succeed, and succeed well, other states tend to adopt them. So, if it's really a great solution, and California pulls it off, California pulls ahead. Fantastic! Other states, needing to compete, would likely initiate similar programs, with the specifics detailed to their own local needs. Fantastic!

What happens in this little scenario if California was the only state to pass universal health care in the west? You'll see a surge of the west's poor move out there. Like I said in my last post you would essentially be setting up California to fail because of the new greater demand for health care. this is why you mandate that all states have a public option to help support the amount of people who would seek out these services.

And who says people would move anywhere anyway? Canada has universal health care but i don't see our countries poor flocking in great numbers there? In this case it really isn't reform now is it?

Let's say, though, that what happens is what the right expects. A political body ignorant of the real needs, and simply seeking positive soundbites on the 6 o'clock news screws things p, and badly. The system generally doesn't help the people most in need, is exploited by those least in need, costs far, far more than it is estimated to, thereby driving debt up to levels that 1920s Germany would balk at. A few things will probably happen. The wealthy tend to increase their relative wealth during times of crisis; the gap between rich and poor would *grow*, rather than shrink. Those looking to exploit the system would be the most likely to move in (they would almost certainly move in if the system worked, too, but in this scenario, those looking for opportunity are less likely to be drawn). Things go from already not-ideal to "Ohshi.... we screwed up."

Again, if a state the size of California, or Texas, is unable to organize things when they are faced with *vastly* fewer problems than organizing something on a national level across the United States, how on *earth* do you expect a corrupt, grossly inefficient federal government to do it right?

I'm curious where was all these tea party protesters during the Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. we are in great debt to begin with because of some lunatic with a jesus is my homeboy lapel pin thought it was god's will for us to "Free" other countries. Aside from some Libertarians, conservatives are the biggest fucking hypocrites the modern world has ever known.

[Sirrus_Asura]

What happens in this little scenario if California was the only state to pass universal health care in the west? You'll see a surge of the west's poor move out there. Like I said in my last post you would essentially be setting up California to fail because of the new greater demand for health care. this is why you mandate that all states have a public option to help support the amount of people who would seek out these services.

Isn't your scenario unlikely to happen? At least in your eyes the majority of people want a gov. option. Pretty simple solution, the majority of states will have a gov. option.


Edit: Get over repubs. They suck. We know. Find something else to bitch about.

[Rhinox]

Isn't your scenario unlikely to happen? At least in your eyes the majority of people want a gov. option. Pretty simple solution, the majority of states will have a gov. option.


Edit: Get over repubs. They suck. We know. Find something else to bitch about.

only, you know the majority of the United states don't vote.

[Sirrus_Asura]

only, you know the majority of the United states don't vote.

lolwut

[Rhinox]

If I cared enough to own you I'd post some stats to back me up. but it would be childs play.

[Sirrus_Asura]

If I cared enough to own you I'd post some stats to back me up. but it would be childs play.

Cared enough to respond though? You're cool.

I'm amazed at your innablity to at least compromise or even agree to some extent on State Run Healtcare. Gotta drive everyone into the ground eh?

[Beckwin]

the US does have low voter turnouts, especially in non-presidential elections.

and that whole bullshit about states has been addressed. states are often more inefficient/corrupt than the federal government and healthcare in particular is something that becomes more efficient when more people are under the same umbrella. this also eliminates state-to-state issues/conflicts of policy.

[Ryuushin]

Seems the White House/Obama is going to drop the public option in health care reform.. Not aggressive enough.. it's why I always wanted Hillary to win but oh well >.>

Either way.. this will be an issue again at some point but it's how the world works, always need a majority to agree to have reforms rather than "morals".

[guartz]

1. What is the market?
2. Why is the government inherently at odds with the market? If it is, which should be prioritized?

1. Market is formed when two parties agree to exchange.
2. Government is inherently violent and aggressive.

Take the non-aggression principle and the market to it's conclusion, and you end up with anarcho-capitalism.

[Olo401]

Hey guartz.. here's a tip - humanity is inherently violent and aggressive by nature, like all animals.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Hey guartz.. here's a tip - humanity is inherently violent and aggressive by nature, like all animals.

Your point?

[guartz]

Hey guartz.. here's a tip - humanity is inherently violent and aggressive by nature, like all animals.

Even if this is true, what is your point?

[Olo401]

Even if this is true, what is your point?

Put the blame where it belongs and stop blaming the institution of government for society's problems. It's people that fuck it up.

[Not not Mattaru]

1. Market is formed when two parties agree to exchange.
2. Government is inherently violent and aggressive.

Take the non-aggression principle and the market to it's conclusion, and you end up with anarcho-capitalism.

That is what I thought, didn't want to make assumptions though.

1) Two parties can be any parties so by definition the government can't be excluded from acting in the market. So you can't claim that they ought be kept separate because of some primordial, semantic difference. Your issue is something else, which you can define if you want, but I can tell you already its a matter of case not principle and is non-unique in its vision.

2) Sure. Even having a very basic judiciary (the miniest of minarchism or whatever) tacitly implies violence or coercion to compel someone to act in accordance to a contract whether it be a contract between two parties or the law. Whether that violence is physical or mental/psychological/emotional varies, but its violence nonetheless. The only way to escape even the most fundamental of government functions is therefore anarchy.

In other words your base premises if executing to their logical end, require two options for you 1) Anarchy/Anarcho-capitalism(which is still anarchy...) or 2) Hypocrisy.

Moreover, without some sort of judiciary mechanism - whether it be a court that we think of or something more communal based and traditional - contracts, agreements, and communal values can not be backed without the use of some sort of violence if it comes down to it. So agreements made in the market can be broken with the only thing stopping them is the belief that it will hurt your long-term self interest which I believe is true in some cases, but if game theory and a long history of humankind are taken into consideration I would probably think it is not absolute. I can continue to poke holes in this, but I'm not going to get ahead of you or myself.