 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:57 pm |
|
Someone said that he hasn't really heard anybody present a case for or against the public option. Since I'm for, I'll state my case for the public option.
I personally take a look at what we need, as a society and as individual consumers, from the Health Insurance industry. Consumers, of course, need financial protection to make sure that medical hardship does not translate to financial hardship. We, as a society, need people to have that protection. Not only is the health of your neighbor an influence on your own, his economic health is the same influence.
So, the more people we can keep healthy, the better for us as a society. The more poeple we can keep solvent, the better for us as a society.
Are we getting this from private health insurance. Not right now we're not.
The reason is in an inherant difference between insurance and other industries, including other societal needs including food, power, water, healthcare (which is different from health insurance). Most other industries have an income directly related to the provision of their product or service. So, the profit equasion is the price of product/service provided minus the cost of providing that product/service.
Insurance doesn't work that way. It's sold first and then, ideally, provided upon need within certain conditions. So, the equasion runs amount of service sold minus amount of service provided. They make less money by providing the protection they sell.
We could run down the list of tricks that health insurance companies have to protect the bottom line. They include weeding out those with pre-existing conditions (you know, those people who have the strongest need of the protection insurance sells and that demographic that society most needs to have that protection) and denying insurance based on the slightest typo in application.
This could be a good argument for regulation and I'll favor propper and well enforced regulation. But, I don't have faith that regulation alone will do the job. The equasion is undeniable and any private insurance company knows that other private insurance companies work with that same equasion and a goal of profit. So, while they may compete in terms of advertising, in terms of PR, in terms of pricing, etc, they know they won't have to compete in terms of actually providing that health insurance.
Regulation will do only what the insurance contracts do, and that is force them to provide the insurance that they can't wiggle out of. There's no evil in that wiggling, but let's not pretend that the same effort will dissappear in the face of regulations.
A public option creates a non-profit agency that we know will remain non-profit. It will have the goal of providing health insurance. And, suddenly, the private agencies will have to compete on the basis of who provides the best health insurance.
Some say that this will put a beurocrat between you and your doctor. Medicaid and Medicare suggest otherwise and, even if, it can hardly be worse than having a private industry beurocrat between you and your doctor.
Some say that this will be a slippery slope to a single payer system. I don't really mind that thought, because we have multiple examples to show that it works. But, if you do mind, just bare in mind that this slope only slips on the incompetance of the private health insurance industry to actually provide the health insurance they sell.
So, we have either private health insurance providing health insurance or a slipping into a single payer system. Either way works for me.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
You could take most of your arguments here and replace health insurance with employment. Your position works the same for that. It's called the Soviet system, and we all know how well that worked. There are ways of correcting health-care insurance costs without the federal government becoming the insurance provider.
But as far as a case against federal health insurance, this "public option" isn't constitutional.
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:08 pm by Ronson
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: You could take most of your arguments here and replace health insurance with employment. Your position works the same for that. It's called the Soviet system, and we all know how well that worked. There are ways of correcting health-care insurance costs without the federal government becoming the insurance provider.
Thing is, there is a "public option" for employment. The Federal government employs 2.7 million people - about 2% of the workforce. State and local governments employ (I'm guessing) probably an additional 10-20 million. There are 2.5 million public schoolteachers alone, most employed at a sub-county level.
Also, if you don't replace "health insurance" with "employment," you have the Canadian system. Or the Japanese system. And Stephen Harper and Yukio Hatoyama are not scary like Stalin, and their systems seem to be working a lot better than ours does.
But as far as a case against federal health insurance, this "public option" isn't constitutional.
How do you figure?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Thing is, there is a "public option" for employment. The Federal government employs 2.7 million people - about 2% of the workforce. State and local governments employ (I'm guessing) probably an additional 10-20 million. There are 2.5 million public schoolteachers alone, most employed at a sub-county level.
That's disingenuous. The fact the government hires people is not the same as the government guaranteeing employment for U.S. citizens. The health care "public option" is guaranteeing health insurance for citizenry.
Also, if you don't replace "health insurance" with "employment," you have the Canadian system. Or the Japanese system. And Stephen Harper and Yukio Hatoyama are not scary like Stalin, and their systems seem to be working a lot better than ours does.
That's a matter of opinion.
How do you figure?
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If you want the U.S. government to get into a mandatory health care insurance business you'll need to amend the Constitution (as was done with the 16th amendment).
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 08:45 pm by Ronson
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 09:12 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: Thing is, there is a "public option" for employment. The Federal government employs 2.7 million people - about 2% of the workforce. State and local governments employ (I'm guessing) probably an additional 10-20 million. There are 2.5 million public schoolteachers alone, most employed at a sub-county level.
That's disingenuous. The fact the government hires people is not the same as the government guaranteeing employment for U.S. citizens. The health care "public option" is guaranteeing health insurance for citizenry.
And you don't think it's disingenuous to compare "guaranteeing health insurance for citizenry" to "replacing all private employment with a single employer"? The two are such light years apart in every single sense that the only reason anyone would possibly draw the connection is as an excuse to mention Stalin and gulags.
Even if the U.S. government did guarantee employment for U.S. citizens, that still wouldn't be the Soviet system. The Soviets didn't say "If you're unemployed, you're welcome to come work for the government"; they said "Okay, you all work for the government now."
Also, if you don't replace "health insurance" with "employment," you have the Canadian system. Or the Japanese system. And Stephen Harper and Yukio Hatoyama are not scary like Stalin, and their systems seem to be working a lot better than ours does. That's a matter of opinion.
Not entirely. It is not a matter of opinion that America spends more money on health care than any other country on the planet (indeed, than any other country in history). And it is not a matter of opinion that we rank lower than many other countries on several metrics, including preventable deaths, life expectancy, and communicable disease. And it is not a matter of opinion that we have a large number of people with no access to anything but emergency care, where countries that pay less than us do not have that problem.
"How do you figure?
" Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If you want the U.S. government to get into a mandatory health care insurance business you'll need to amend the Constitution (as was done with the 16th amendment).
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it's very obvious to me that the U.S. government has the Constitutional power to allocate money to a Federal program, to tax the states for that program, and then place requirements on states if they choose to accept the money.
And it's also obvious to me that no state would say "Okay, we'll pay our share for a national health insurance system, but our citizens are going to opt out." That's Constitutional to do, but it's political suicide.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: And you don't think it's disingenuous to compare "guaranteeing health insurance for citizenry" to "replacing all private employment with a single employer"?
I never said anything about a single employer. I was making a point about building a nanny government. The argument used above for the "public option" can also be used to expand government with all sorts of guarantees for "the good of society."
The two are such light years apart in every single sense that the only reason anyone would possibly draw the connection is as an excuse to mention Stalin and gulags.
I mentioned neither.
Even if the U.S. government did guarantee employment for U.S. citizens, that still wouldn't be the Soviet system. The Soviets didn't say "If you're unemployed, you're welcome to come work for the government"; they said "Okay, you all work for the government now."
All Soviet citizens were guaranteed jobs. I worked with a Jewish Soviet immigrant (Alex) who diverted here in 1979 when he was supposed to relocate to Israel (he and his father changed their tickets to New York once they got to Vienna). He was guaranteed a job in the Soviet Union. There was zero unemployment there. Brezhnev was keen on bragging about that whenever he got the chance. The problem was most of those Soviet jobs were a joke. Alex said barely half of the people actually worked at their jobs. Many showed up drunk or hungover because they couldn't be fired. His supervisor slept on a cot most of the day.
Not entirely. It is not a matter of opinion that America spends more money on health care than any other country on the planet (indeed, than any other country in history). And it is not a matter of opinion that we rank lower than many other countries on several metrics, including preventable deaths, life expectancy, and communicable disease. And it is not a matter of opinion that we have a large number of people with no access to anything but emergency care, where countries that pay less than us do not have that problem.
I'd need sources. I've also read where many wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment to get around some of the long delays and inferior care.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it's very obvious to me that the U.S. government has the Constitutional power to allocate money to a Federal program, to tax the states for that program, and then place requirements on states if they choose to accept the money.
Well, I suppose you have a somewhat-precedent with the Department of Transportation. It is funded by the states, and then it makes demands on how/when states recover that money for road improvements. That could probably be challenged.
And it's also obvious to me that no state would say "Okay, we'll pay our share for a national health insurance system, but our citizens are going to opt out." That's Constitutional to do, but it's political suicide.
I see a court challenge if this "public option" goes through (depending on the details).
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: Even if the U.S. government did guarantee employment for U.S. citizens, that still wouldn't be the Soviet system. The Soviets didn't say "If you're unemployed, you're welcome to come work for the government"; they said "Okay, you all work for the government now."
All Soviet citizens were guaranteed jobs. I worked with a Jewish Soviet immigrant (Alex) who diverted here in 1979 when he was supposed to relocate to Israel (he and his father changed their tickets to New York once they got to Vienna). He was guaranteed a job in the Soviet Union. There was zero unemployment there. Brezhnev was keen on bragging about that whenever he got the chance. The problem was most of those Soviet jobs were a joke. Alex said barely half of the people actually worked at their jobs. Many showed up drunk or hungover because they couldn't be fired. His supervisor slept on a cot most of the day.
The Soviet Union provided all its citizens jobs. That means they also guaranteed jobs, but they went much further than that.
Here's an analogy. If I say "Ronson, if you ever get fired, I can get you a job at my company," that's a guarantee of a job. And that's similar to what the Democrats have in mind with the public option: if nothing else covers you, you can do this.
If I say "Ronson, I've just got you a job at my company as assistant janitor. Pack up your things; my thugs will be there to relocate you" - that's also a guarantee of a job. And, in fact, it fits what I've heard of how the Soviets did things.
Just because the two are guarantees doesn't make them moral equivalents.
"Not entirely. It is not a matter of opinion that America spends more money on health care than any other country on the planet (indeed, than any other country in history). And it is not a matter of opinion that we rank lower than many other countries on several metrics, including preventable deaths, life expectancy, and communicable disease. And it is not a matter of opinion that we have a large number of people with no access to anything but emergency care, where countries that pay less than us do not have that problem. "
I'd need sources. I've also read where many wealthier Europeans come to America for treatment to get around some of the long delays and inferior care.
I'm referring mostly to a 2000 WHO study. Here's the summary they published:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
Wikipedia also has good links to our shortcomings in infant mortality and life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
What you're saying about wealthy Europeans jibes with my general impression of American health care: that it's the best in the world if you're a millionaire, that it's pretty good if you're upper-middle class, and that otherwise you're pretty much completely left out in the cold.
"I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it's very obvious to me that the U.S. government has the Constitutional power to allocate money to a Federal program, to tax the states for that program, and then place requirements on states if they choose to accept the money. "
Well, I suppose you have a somewhat-precedent with the Department of Transportation. It is funded by the states, and then it makes demands on how/when states recover that money for road improvements. That could probably be challenged.
Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure these court challenges took place decades and even centuries ago. It's not just the Dept. of Transportation - the Dept. of Education is probably the best example. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Feds set educational policy - but what they can do is pay for 10% of it and say "You're only getting this money if you abide by these rules."
Ultimately, no one ever opts out. 10% doesn't seem like a huge figure, but in absolute terms, we're talking billions of dollars.
|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:28 am |
|
Ronson wrote: You could take most of your arguments here and replace health insurance with employment. Your position works the same for that. It's called the Soviet system, and we all know how well that worked. There are ways of correcting health-care insurance costs without the federal government becoming the insurance provider.
But as far as a case against federal health insurance, this "public option" isn't constitutional.
A. In response to your first paragraph, bullshit. It's just a random run of "it's communism!". Unless you think it's communist to have the police force entirely public-run, you know that the government providing one *option* or even the entirety of one service (such as military defense) doesn't require the government taking over all industries whatsoever.
B. In response to your second paragraph, bullshit.
So, in general, bullshit.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:51 am |
|
Ronson wrote: There are ways of correcting health-care insurance costs without the federal government becoming the insurance provider.
Such as? So far, we have yet to see the insurance community taking it upon themselves to ensure that all citizens have access to health care. Instead, we see them cutting off anyone who really needs it for any number of reasons, most notably the "pre-existing condition" excuse.
Seems to me someone needs to step in and make sure that the US health care system benefits people instead of insurance companies.
-- A2SG, as it is, the republican party may as well just admit that they represent the insurance industry now....
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:53 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: The Soviet Union provided all its citizens jobs. That means they also guaranteed jobs, but they went much further than that.
Here's an analogy. If I say "Ronson, if you ever get fired, I can get you a job at my company," that's a guarantee of a job. And that's similar to what the Democrats have in mind with the public option: if nothing else covers you, you can do this.
If I say "Ronson, I've just got you a job at my company as assistant janitor. Pack up your things; my thugs will be there to relocate you" - that's also a guarantee of a job. And, in fact, it fits what I've heard of how the Soviets did things.
Just because the two are guarantees doesn't make them moral equivalents.
They are not exactly equivalent but there is a problem with this guarantee. This "public option" is being floated as a safety net. This safety net is being financed though taxation. So if I want to purchase private health insurance I will be doing so on top of paying taxes to fund the "public option." And before you say anything - there is no way this public plan is going to be financed solely by "the wealthy." I don't care what the Dems are saying. It never happens that way, assuming there is any moral argument for it anyway.
Conclusion: I can pay double for health insurance (voluntary private payment and mandatory public payment) or simply go with the "public option" and make only one payment. People who used to be able to afford private health insurance, like the middle class, may no longer be able to afford it and will be forced to go on the public plan. I don't want the government to force me to deal with its bureaucracy.
I'm referring mostly to a 2000 WHO study. Here's the summary they published:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
Wikipedia also has good links to our shortcomings in infant mortality and life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
What you're saying about wealthy Europeans jibes with my general impression of American health care: that it's the best in the world if you're a millionaire, that it's pretty good if you're upper-middle class, and that otherwise you're pretty much completely left out in the cold.
I will examine these when I have more time.
Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure these court challenges took place decades and even centuries ago. It's not just the Dept. of Transportation - the Dept. of Education is probably the best example. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Feds set educational policy - but what they can do is pay for 10% of it and say "You're only getting this money if you abide by these rules."
Ultimately, no one ever opts out. 10% doesn't seem like a huge figure, but in absolute terms, we're talking billions of dollars.
I don't believe there were many (or any) court challenges to the many executive departments that have been created. I suspect they sneaked through because a challenge would be very expensive and would need to come from the private sectors. There probably were no deep-pocketed private groups ready to battle the feds on these.
However, insurance companies, drug companies, the AMA and other groups will have a stake in this. They have deep pockets and may want to fight.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:12 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Such as? So far, we have yet to see the insurance community taking it upon themselves to ensure that all citizens have access to health care. Instead, we see them cutting off anyone who really needs it for any number of reasons, most notably the "pre-existing condition" excuse.
Seems to me someone needs to step in and make sure that the US health care system benefits people instead of insurance companies.
-- A2SG, as it is, the republican party may as well just admit that they represent the insurance industry now....
There have been many health reform plans being kicked around in Congress. All of them address the costs of private health insurance. These are the plans that have some chance of being passed. Only one plan (that I know of) currently includes the "public option."
|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:07 am |
|
Item of note, Ronson, the public option would not be taxpayer funded. Its income would be based on the number of policies sold, just like with private companies.
The big difference that the public option wouldn't be more beholden to stockholders than to consumers.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:53 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Such as? So far, we have yet to see the insurance community taking it upon themselves to ensure that all citizens have access to health care. Instead, we see them cutting off anyone who really needs it for any number of reasons, most notably the "pre-existing condition" excuse.
Seems to me someone needs to step in and make sure that the US health care system benefits people instead of insurance companies.
-- A2SG, as it is, the republican party may as well just admit that they represent the insurance industry now....
There have been many health reform plans being kicked around in Congress. All of them address the costs of private health insurance. These are the plans that have some chance of being passed. Only one plan (that I know of) currently includes the "public option."
Care to give me an example of, oh, say just one? I'm curious as to exactly how they "address" the cost of private health insurance.
'Cuz it seems to me republicans are more interested in protecting the interests of the large insurance companies than the people, so I'd be surprised as hell if any such "addressing" were more than purely voluntary on the insurance companies' part.
-- A2SG, well, that, and saying a resounding "NO!!" to anything Obama has to offer, no matter what.....
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 07:00 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Such as? So far, we have yet to see the insurance community taking it upon themselves to ensure that all citizens have access to health care. Instead, we see them cutting off anyone who really needs it for any number of reasons, most notably the "pre-existing condition" excuse.
Seems to me someone needs to step in and make sure that the US health care system benefits people instead of insurance companies.
-- A2SG, as it is, the republican party may as well just admit that they represent the insurance industry now....
There have been many health reform plans being kicked around in Congress. All of them address the costs of private health insurance. These are the plans that have some chance of being passed. Only one plan (that I know of) currently includes the "public option."
Care to give me an example of, oh, say just one? I'm curious as to exactly how they "address" the cost of private health insurance.
'Cuz it seems to me republicans are more interested in protecting the interests of the large insurance companies than the people, so I'd be surprised as hell if any such "addressing" were more than purely voluntary on the insurance companies' part.
-- A2SG, well, that, and saying a resounding "NO!!" to anything Obama has to offer, no matter what.....
Actually, the House finalized its health care reform bill last week. You can read a few details about it here:
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Oct30-s.html
The plan does include a public option, but that's a fairly small facet of it; mostly, it regulates the existing insurance industry. For example, it demands that "Insurance companies will have to spend 85% of their premium income on medical care, " limiting the amount of health care dollars that go to advertising, CEO salaries, etc.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:32 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Such as? So far, we have yet to see the insurance community taking it upon themselves to ensure that all citizens have access to health care. Instead, we see them cutting off anyone who really needs it for any number of reasons, most notably the "pre-existing condition" excuse.
Seems to me someone needs to step in and make sure that the US health care system benefits people instead of insurance companies.
-- A2SG, as it is, the republican party may as well just admit that they represent the insurance industry now....
There have been many health reform plans being kicked around in Congress. All of them address the costs of private health insurance. These are the plans that have some chance of being passed. Only one plan (that I know of) currently includes the "public option."
Care to give me an example of, oh, say just one? I'm curious as to exactly how they "address" the cost of private health insurance.
'Cuz it seems to me republicans are more interested in protecting the interests of the large insurance companies than the people, so I'd be surprised as hell if any such "addressing" were more than purely voluntary on the insurance companies' part.
-- A2SG, well, that, and saying a resounding "NO!!" to anything Obama has to offer, no matter what.....
Actually, the House finalized its health care reform bill last week. You can read a few details about it here:
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Oct30-s.html
The plan does include a public option, but that's a fairly small facet of it; mostly, it regulates the existing insurance industry. For example, it demands that "Insurance companies will have to spend 85% of their premium income on medical care, " limiting the amount of health care dollars that go to advertising, CEO salaries, etc.
That's all well and good...but does it prevent insurance companies from raising their premiums to cover those costs? Apparently not:
"But at this point, the House bill is cast in stone and many Democratic senators are furious with the industry for releasing a report saying any reform would increase premiums."
I don't care how furious they are, they should change the bill to ensure that they can't.
I like that it seems to cover many of the excuses insurance companies use to deny claims, but I'm sure many loopholes will be found. And I'm also sure there are republican pols out there ready to make sure those loopholes remain open.
I understand the need for compromise in passing the bill...but I feel a public option is necessary, not just a nice thing if it can be added, no big deal if not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Dems have a majority now? Why the problem in passing the thing?
-- A2SG, I'm less surprised by republican pols whose main goals here seem to be protecting the profit margins of insurance companies than I am by the ignorant masses who allow it, at their own expense.....
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:40 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
emmylou
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:18 am |
|
Ronson,
England guarantees health care for all. Are you suggesting the Brits are communists?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
emmylou wrote: Ronson,
England guarantees health care for all. Are you suggesting the Brits are communists?
No. What I said was (IOW): If you are going to argue that government should be augmented for the good of society, then that argument can be stretched to the point of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see the difference, other than arbitrary lines being drawn.Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:30 pm by Ronson
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: emmylou wrote: Ronson,
England guarantees health care for all. Are you suggesting the Brits are communists?
No. What I said was (IOW): If you are going to argue that government should be augmented for the good of society, then that argument can be stretched to the point of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see the difference, other than arbitrary lines being drawn.
There has to be an arbitrary line. Because "From each according to his ability, to absolutely no one; go starve, you damn peasant" is not a viable economic system either. The answer lies in the middle.
The USSR circa 1980 may not have been an ideal place to live, but London circa 1880 was equally, if not more, problematic.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: There has to be an arbitrary line. Because "From each according to his ability, to absolutely no one; go starve, you damn peasant" is not a viable economic system either. The answer lies in the middle.
Are you describing anarchy? Because I know of no modern political system that advocates that.
The USSR circa 1980 may not have been an ideal place to live, but London circa 1880 was equally, if not more, problematic.
London is a city, USSR was a empire. London has a long history of ups and downs with a few political systems. The USSR has a relatively brief history and is defined by having only one political system. As far as the year 1880, what significance does that have other than being at the tail end of centuries of monarchial rule?
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: There has to be an arbitrary line. Because "From each according to his ability, to absolutely no one; go starve, you damn peasant" is not a viable economic system either. The answer lies in the middle.
Are you describing anarchy? Because I know of no modern political system that advocates that.
The USSR circa 1980 may not have been an ideal place to live, but London circa 1880 was equally, if not more, problematic.
London is a city, USSR was a empire. London has a long history of ups and downs with a few political systems. The USSR has a relatively brief history and is defined by having only one political system. As far as the year 1880, what significance does that have other than being at the tail end of centuries of monarchial rule?
I'm not talking about anarchy, but rather about laissez-faire capitalism in its purest form. London in 1880 is emblematic of what happens when the government stays completely out of the economy: you get explosive economic growth, a ridiculously rich upper class, enormous, sprawling, filthy slums, a sanitation disaster, rampant crime, and pollution so thick people literally choke to death in it.
At some point, the government needs to step in and provide certain things, including environmental regulation, certain services, and social programs. And, yes, the most successful governments have always played "Robin Hood" to some extent. Laissez-faire capitalism by its nature opens up an enormous, insurmountable rich-poor gap. The most successful societies close that gap somewhat. Not all the way - that's socialism, and it fails - but somewhat.
Yes, there has to be a line, and yes, it has to be drawn in an arbitrary place. The existence of a fire department, or public schools, or a national highway system, are examples of "government should be augmented for the good of society."
Take that to its extreme, and you get communism. So you know what you do about that? Don't take it to its extreme.
|
Current time is 08:26 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
