Raoul:
Loki my boy, I'm gonna buy you a sarcasm detector for Christmas. You're still Christian, right?
Sorry for not picking up on the sarcasm, but I've been attacked on this board far too often over my beliefs in this area to be able to detect sarcasm without a smiley, especially given your own strong beliefs regarding this issue.
And, "yes", last time I checked.
Now, the following is a statement that I mean in all seriousness. I for one agree with you that on a certain level, subsidizing idiots care with my tax dollars is unpalatable. But on a very deep, fundamental level I believe that regardless of race, intelligence, sexual preference, religion, whatever, that if you're a human being living on this earth, well then you're my brother. And that we should all look out for each other, no matter what. If someone is in need of help, then I try and lend a hand.
And I commend you for that-- you're quite possibly a better human being than I am, and I mean that in all seriousness. Charity and brotherhood are values we should all aspire to; what I take issue with are not these core values, but rather
A) their implementation, and
B) the notion that the institution of government should in some way coerce people into
being that ideal human being by dint of broad, mandatory social programs. It's a question of what I feel the proper role of government is, not a question of my own ethics (after all, under my ideal system, no one would be denied care, so we're not as far apart as you may perhaps think).
But if you extend this rationale to its logical conclusion, you begin to see some very questionable ends/effects manifesting themselves. I generally despise analogies/conjecture, and so will refrain from trying to illustrate the possible scenarios which could obtain should such a rationale be taken to its logical end. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to do your own thinking about why it would give people pause. In short, what you are proposing is akin to communism in many ways, and is therefore subject to many of the same criticisms commonly leveled against it (taking a broad view, obviously).
Also, I am not a wealthy man. I used to make more money than I do now(which is roughly in the neighborhood of 20k a year; it doesn't go very far after bills and expenses). I don't buy lots of useless crap, because I don't have a use for it. I haven't bought a videogame since last November, go out drinking a couple nights a week with friends and mostly live a very low key lifestyle. I am a lifelong vegetarian, don't smoke or do drugs, and yes I do enjoy drinking but probably not as much as you would guess.
I didn't mean to imply that you spend your money unnecessarily; the Pabst joke was just that-- a joke.
And I only made it because you're always talking about how much you drink, so I figured you spent a fair amount of coin on booze; you can't fault me for thinking that based on your posting history.
Besides which, the larger point I've raised (and which I raise below) still holds, even if it does not apply to your particular situation. My proposed system would only require modest yearly out-of-pocket expenses to be paid, and then the rest of the year's care would be taken care of by catastrophic coverage (as noted in the other threads, this was the dominant paradigm for decades in the US, and it was also the era during which self-reported patient satisfaction with the medical system was
highest, in stark contrast to what we witness presently). For a person earning what you earn annually, it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $300-400 out of pocket per year. Does that sound reasonable? Because it does to me...
You also did not have to volunteer all that personal information for the sake of proving a point to me, so if you want to edit it out for privacy's sake, say the word and I'll edit the above quote also.
My point with all of this is: even with my diminished resources, I have never had a problem giving of my time and resources to those in need, whether I know them or not. I volunteer weekly at a soup kitchen, and also work on projects for Habitat for Humanity, Amnesty International and the ACLU on a monthly basis. So why is it so fucking hard for all of the people with all of the money in the world to want to give something back? Why must they constantly cheat the system, look for that extra tax break/loophole, and generally fuck over the working man?
Again, your humanity is laudable; at the very least, it's clear that you're living your ideals, and I really respect that (in all seriousness), because I
do value many of those same ideals, despite the fact that I may disagree on finer points of policy like this. Again, the issue imo is one of feasibility and personal philosophy re: the role of government, not one of ethical values such as charity/compassion. I'm not saying that you personally have ever implied this, but I don't for one second buy the oft-implied notion that I'm somehow inhumane just because I don't support (fully) socialized medicine. I defy
anyone to tell me precisely how I'm "inhumane" when, under my ideal system, the
exact same ends would obtain (care for all)-- they'd merely occur under a slightly different, and in my estimation more practicable and philosophically defensible, system. I don't see what's so terrible about that, and I don't much enjoy being demonized for holding a minority opinion on this board, especially when I go to great lengths to substantiate it and don't just make ill-considered remarks and leave the thread.
As for your last two sentences regarding the "haves" and the "have-nots", I agree in many respects, as I'm sure you can tell based on my posts in threads dealing with corporate malfeasance and the absurd (and indefensible) economic stratification of our society. I'm with you on all that. It's not entirely germane to this conversation, though, except in the sense that I personally believe that people earning, say, $1M per annum can more than afford to pay for all medical care out of pocket (i.e., their "deductible" under my plan, should they avail themselves of that amount of services-- which would be incredibly rare-- would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $180K).
Also, please keep in mind that when I state certain things about certain policies, I am envisioning things as I believe they should be
as a whole. If you look at one of my opinions or suggested policies in isolation, sure, you might be able to poke holes in it; if one takes a broader view, however (as I do, seeing as how, well, they're
my thoughts
), one will see that most things cohere quite nicely. I have a vision of how society should be, and arguments against specific aspects of that philosophy that ultimately boil down to "yeah, well if you do this, then that'll throw this other thing off and cause trouble" rather than addressing
the underlying philosophical and practical merits of what I'm saying entirely miss the point.
Do you have much one on one experience with the poor, Loki? They're not all stereotypes. They are all living, breathing, thinking and feeling human beings that want what anyone wants, but in most cases lost out on the genetic lottery to put themselves in a position from birth to have it all.
I don't feel that I've ever stereotyped anyone, poor or otherwise. If you feel that I have, please provide examples (I'm not angry or anything, I'm just saying-- if I did so, I'd like to correct my behavior). My point about people who supposedly can't afford coverage but can afford luxuries is a pertinent one, though-- talk to any ER physician in the country and they'll tell you that upwards of 60% of the uninsured who visit the ER have either a financially ruinous substance abuse problem (nicotene, drugs, alcohol) or clearly spend significant amounts on other luxuries. I did not mean to imply that all the uninsured can be characterized as such, but rather that such people exist in great numbers and we should not encourage them. We
should be concerned with helping the truly needy; I feel that such a plan as I've proposed is more sound in this regard, since it mandates a reasonable, annual out of pocket contribution for medical care should one obtain said services.
As for the plight of the poor, well, I'm all for improving their lot in life, and a great many of the social programs and reforms that I would enact (which can be pieced together from my stated opinions in various threads-- e.g., a living wage; greater emphasis on primary and vocational education, particularly in impoverished areas; community outreach programs etc.) would go a long way towards ameliorating their unfortunate situation.
I'm not of the mind that "all poor people are lazy bums", because that is preposterous-- but certainly it is reasonable to set policy that, while helping those who truly need it (and in ways which will
truly aid them rather than merely incentivize indolence and apathy), will not encourage or tolerate those who would take advantage of the good will of others. This strikes me as the most sensible course of action.
Because that's the way society functions today, and it's not fair, and it's not right. And if all of the rich, heartless bastards think that it can keep going on this way forever they should study their history. One day they'll find their asses up against the wall or their heads on the chopping block, because the poor vastly outnumber the rich, and one day, one day the meek WILL inherit the earth.
You're correct: it's not fair, and it's not right. And your allusions to historical uprisings the world over (the French Revolution comes most readily to mind), the root causes of which can be seen festering quite clearly in our present society if one has eyes to see, are also on-point. Sad to say, but it's only a matter of time imo.
I don't think that we'll get it out of charity from the bold, either. I think we'll get it by prying it from them and stomping them into the ground forever.
My religious beliefs preclude me from condoning, or engaging in, revolutionary violence. Consequently (and somewhat unfortunately), I have resigned myself to the status quo, since I feel that nothing which
has to change in this country actually
will change. The illness is systemic, the powerful interests guiding the course of our nation too entrenched, the culture too debased, selfish, and myopic to inculcate anything other than apathy and resignation in the populace. People are too busy working long hours to have time to worry about broader sociopolitical issues (incidentally, as conspiratorial as it may sound, I happen to believe that the frenetic nature of modern life is not a coincidence in this regard, but is intended to "take our eyes off the prize", so to speak-- God, I sound like Manabyte
).
The best we can do, I feel, is to speak out boldly against what has taken place in this country, and to be a light to others in whatever capacity we can. I will never take up arms against anyone who has not taken arms up against me; despite the fact that corporate and governmental control of our society's perceptions via the media is ubiquitous, it
can be seen through, as evidenced by yourself and many others. And so long as those of good sense can ascertain the truth of the matter despite the hectic nature of modern life and the incessant jumble of information emanating from all corners, then that means that we ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves for being so gullible. It doesn't make what they're doing "right", but it
does make me wonder about humanity sometimes, that they would so slavishly (and unwittingly) don the shackles provided by their
soi-disant "benefactors".
Oh, believe you me, you're not the only one who can rant...
Doug:
Drinky Crow said:
I don't get the obsession with how other people spend their money. If they wanna buy a tricked-out rice ride with gold spinners and go home to a box in the ghetto, so fucking be it. Just because you think people should be punished for every poor choice they make doesn't make it justice. Eventually, as adults, we have to accept that common sense is a rare fucking commodity, sigh heavily, and then go about the business of tending to our own glass houses.
Good health should be a RIGHT, not a privilege of the select few with gobs of money or a particular fiscal credo. There's a few things that folks should have access to regardless of their financial acumen, and the ability to obtain quality basic medical service for little or no charge is one of them.
I disagree for the reasons stated in the thread I linked to. You're also setting up a false dichotomy when you tacitly assert that just because I don't believe in fully socialized medicine, that it must mean I believe that health care should only be available to people with "gobs of money". This is false; I believe that
all people should be entitled to
all care once a manageable yearly deductible based on income level has been paid. This doesn't strike me as unreasonable, and it's also the
only way to mitigate the ethical shortcomings of socialized/third-party systems in general and ensure its solvency and the ability to deliver the level of care that Americans have come to expect. Think Americans are going to wait 68 weeks just for a neurology
consultation (not even for the treatment/surgery) while having crippling back pain like
this gentleman in Britain did? Think again.
As for the whole "common sense is a rare commodity", well, indeed it is-- I just don't think that we, as a society, should resign ourselves to that fact and acquiesce to the wishes of people who feel entitled to commodities on the backs of others while they spend frivolously on luxuries. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and in keeping your own house in order. Enlarging the sphere of government and encouraging the abdication of one's responsibility for their own health for the sake of fixing a problem that would be
just as easily remediable with
less government involvement doesn't strike me as sensible.
I don't believe,
in general (not just w/regard to health care), that a man should ask others to do for him what he can reasonably do for himself; contrary to your belief, reckless, improvident spending is not a foregone conclusion, and should not be condoned. It only occurs because we encourage and tacitly condone it in myriad ways (health care policies and broader sociocultural policies/messages such as our obsession with credit and our overly consumerist culture, for starters). Are people entitled to a rent-controlled apartment (shelter, a more basic need than medical care, is a "right", no?) or subsidized housing just because they were too busy buying "bling" to save up money for a downpayment? It would seem to follow...
As I noted in the thread I linked to in my previous post, both systems have their good and bad points; we should aim at keeping the good while eliminating, insofar as possible, the bad. I don't see what's controversial about that, yet whenever I state this belief, I'm assailed by either yourself, Azih, or Mandark for no apparent reason other than because I'm not all gung-ho on socialism. As if you believed that under my ideal system people would ever be denied care (hint: they wouldn't). There are more choices here than "the extant system" and "a single-payor system", you know, and I find it highly amusing that nobody is seeking these more moderate, more practicable, solutions in the political discourse.
Anyone who disagrees is free to read my reasoning in the thread I linked to in my previous post (and the threads I linked to in
that thread), since I won't be discussing this further here. Not everyone believes that people should be free to suck on the government tit all the time, Doug. When they've fallen on hard times, or when their costs have legitimately exceeded their ability to pay? Sure-- who but the most obdurate among us would take issue with this? But we don't give tuition aid to people whose parents earn $130K for a reason, either, nor do we give welfare and food stamps to those who earn $75K. You think about why that is and get back to me. Think about what assumptions are tied up in the regulations regarding these issues, and why, philosophically, our nation has chosen to make those distinctions (in terms of who to provide social benefits to). These are not arbitrary distinctions, after all, but rather can only be understood within a particular philosophical framework.
It only
makes sense that a man reasonably try to provide for himself (in
any sphere) before he asks others to bear that burden for him to whatever extent (and the fact that the risk is spread to the entire tax base under socialized medicine doesn't change the root of the issue). I'm sorry you disagree, but
c'est la vie, right?
I don't mean to be brusque, but I'm frankly sick of being "called out" every time I make a post dealing with health care policy just because I don't toe the socialist line, and sometimes even when I don't post at all (see Raoul's mention of me, now clarified, in this thread before I even posted, which prompted me to post).
At any rate, I have exams coming up, so that'll be all on this topic from me. Any possible issue raised has already been addressed by myself in the threads I linked to, so I'll leave it at that.
