13 Sep 12
Originally posted by quackquackGovernments all over the world pay for healthcare for all their citizens. And they do it at less cost per capita and with equivalent or better results than our broken system does. Why can't the US do it?
None of what you said addresses the issue that govenrment cannot pay for everything. Perhaps we as a scoeity we need to decide if we want to have 200 more teachers or one heroic effort for a child who may still need many more.
You offer a false choice given the vast amounts of wealth this country possesses.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is simply illogical to think that we can expand our health care system and the liabilities will not be prohibitive. Social Security, Medicaire, Medicaid all greatly exceed their estimated costs. At some point (now) we need to stop expanding the government's liabilities.
Governments all over the world pay for healthcare for all their citizens. And they do it at less cost per capita and with equivalent or better results than our broken system does. Why can't the US do it?
You offer a false choice given the vast amounts of wealth this country possesses.
14 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThat's a pathetic dodge. The government spends vast amounts on totally unnecessary items and taxes at the lowest rate of GDP since the 1950s. There's no need for kids with heart conditions to die to "save money".
It is simply illogical to think that we can expand our health care system and the liabilities will not be prohibitive. Social Security, Medicaire, Medicaid all greatly exceed their estimated costs. At some point (now) we need to stop expanding the government's liabilities.
BTW, a law mandating that insurance companies not impose a lifetime cap on payments under a health insurance (which is what was mentioned in the OP) policy costs the government nothing. Your advice to the parents that their kid should die if they can't raise the money for future treatments is noted.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by quackquackForced labor, that is without the consent of the individual, is slavery, pure and simple.
Doctor need to get paid. They are talented and work hard. The idea that society won't adequatedly compenstae them and simply expect them to save lives may actually be more ridiculous than the idea that government should any medical bill regardless of its size.
The notion that services can be dictated, is dictatorial.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauder"Again first principles."
Step back for a second and think: what was money created for? It has no intrinsic value in and of itself. If money is being used to buy credit default swaps and not for a surgery that will save a kid's life, then our priorities are screwed up.
For that matter, what were human societies formed for? So someone's kid could die while someone else's kid lived in luxury?
Again first principles.
The first principle is individual self ownership. People should not be subjected to force or coercion regardless of the noble rationales for doing so. Human societies unfortunately were usually formed to grant advantages to leaders like tribal chieftains, medicine men, magicians and the like, the equivalent of today's political class, who have sold you the Taurus scat that they can magically produce and distribute more fairly than a voluntary free market. That force is more just than voluntary exchange.
Your arguments are pure strawmen, as nobody is arguing that kids should die.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignYes, I've seen young people forced at gun point to enter into medical school and toil in drudgery for an average salary of $120,000 to $200,000 per year. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary
Forced labor, that is without the consent of the individual, is slavery, pure and simple.
The notion that services can be dictated, is dictatorial.
The Horror.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you realize that her money is hers? Do you also realize that she voluntarily donates gobs of it for various causes that she chooses voluntarily?
Do you realize how rich Oprah is?
These people are rich nearly beyond the comprehension of normal people like you and I.
And if Oprah's children are playing games with the economy and ruining the lives of the rest of us they make themselves legitimate targets.
14 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe idea that humans ever existed in anything but societies is a peculiar Randian fantasy.
"Again first principles."
The first principle is individual self ownership. People should not be subjected to force or coercion regardless of the noble rationales for doing so. Human societies unfortunately were usually formed to grant advantages to leaders like tribal chieftains, medicine men, magicians and the like, the equivalent of today's politi ...[text shortened]... ary exchange.
Your arguments are pure strawmen, as nobody is arguing that kids should die.
As per your last sentence, QQ argued exactly that. As did Bastiat regarding the victims of famines.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is the investment required? Time and money? Enslavement if based on force, not the comparative living conditions of the slave. The palace eunuchs lived well but were still slaves.
Yes, I've seen young people forced at gun point to enter into medical school and toil in drudgery for an average salary of $120,000 to $200,000 per year. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Jobs_as_Physicians_%2f_Doctors/Salary
The Horror.
The house slave was as much a slave as the field hand in a sugar plantation, despite his better living conditions. The key ingredient is forced labor.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd that natural state was based on voluntary interactions, freely agreed upon by the parties involved, until some decided others needed leaders.
Liar:
norm: Human societies unfortunately were [b]usually formed to grant advantages to leaders like BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
Human societies were formed before any of the things you mentioned. Living in society is our Natural State.[/b]