I don't know why, but I missed these two intro videos. It doesn't change my disagreements with your other videos, but it goes a long way toward understanding where you are coming from.
I'll stop trying to tell you that H.R.3200 isn't Universal Health Care (i.e. national health insurance and/or national health delivery).
I agree that it is unfair to say that a fee market wouldn't work. We don't have one and we don't even know what it looks like. I think a real free market would work.
Canada system is a lot more efficient than the american system. A capitalist system will nevwer be better than a single payer system. You may be right as far as us not doing Universal healthcare the best, that just means you have so many examples to model your own after. What to do or not to do.
Yes, because by definition charity cannot be forced. I don't mind a class where charities are lauded or they even go on field trips to view what happens. I just have a problem when you "require" charity. That is an Oxymoron!
It doesn't take many leaps of logic. You said "Universal health care is better because it is moral and efficient." Well I don't exclusively support Universal health care, er go... then I am not supporting something in some situations that is "not moral" .
Oh come on! It just back in March this happened. I don't remember who I was watching but I know it wasn't Fox news. It was the Give Act I believe. What it specifically said that it would make mandatory for High schoolers or Middles schoolers that they do charity work or don't pass class. I think the bill passed but with that part dropped, obviously.
"Condescending or not, it is a relevant label. The activity of denying people health care very well may be immoral. I contend that it is."
Then real discussion will never happen because I do not support the denial of care. Yet still made the assumption that whatever I support is "immoral". When that just isn't the case. Jezuzfreak777 does the same thing about drugs. Osion (?) does the same thing about meat. A "moral" discussion is just simply fruitless.
You have no idea how condescending labeling your opposition as "immoral" actually sounds. As I said I have no problem discussing the facts around health care, but when people start talking what is "morally superior choice" I know from experience no body cares to have a real discussion. It is just a talking-down-to-fest from there.
Number one, people won't go bankrupt because of the cost of healthcare.
Private companies MUST make money for their shareholders by law. Actually paying out for people won't make them more money. So denying people care is better than giving it from a business standpoint.
Because of current restrictions. The more people you insure, the easier it becomes to pay. But if the states (or HR 3200), decided what is going to be in YOUR plain then you cannot pick a cheaper one or pick a company you want to pick from. And so, insurance is not going to be cheep, which cause more to be uninsured, which causes it not to be cheep....
Exactly. The more people you insure, the cheaper it becomes. That's especially true if the healthcare provider isn't doing it for profit, i.e. the government. Even if you have a lot of people being covered at an insurance company, actually paying out means that you're losing profit. Healthcare companies drop people all the time because of bullshit reasons. The government wouldn't.
Yeah, instead of just dropping you they will go, "Oh, sorry, fresh out. You will just have to wait your turn." The government has the uncanny ability to take plenty and turn it into a storage.
Yeah, you usually have to wait unless it's a dire emergency. Nathanforst is the best example of a Canadian who LOVES the healthcare his country gives him. Yes, he has to wait for things, but you have to wait for things here as well.
My view is that It is the for profit system that is the problem. When the main motivation is profit and not well being of patients (in the current system they are customers not patients). I live in the UK and don't have to worry about becoming bankrupt after having health issues. Some questions.
Do you think that everything should be a commodity?
Do you think is it a moral imperative for the better off in society to help the lesser?
"Do you think that everything should be a commodity?"
No, that why I am not an Anarcho-capitalist. I am a strict Constitutionalist. The government has responsibilities that are out-lined in the constitution. If the law does not follow those guidelines then it should not pass. If people feel that it is an important issue that the government should handle then an amendment should be made.
"Do you think is it a moral imperative for the better off in society to help the lesser?"
You are using Kantian language here. So I am forced to say no because there are no such things as the "moral imperative". But to address the spirit of the question, charity cannot be forced. While helping those in need is a good thing, morality (or virtue) at the point of a gun is not morality. Remember when Obama wanted to make it law to force everyone to do charity work? Was that good or bad?
Plus like someone said before here, even crappy universal healthcare would be better than the current system. Health should just be a right, not a business.
Actually this reform wasn't event attempting to provide a universal healthcare. At best it would be a hybrid. Private for those who can afford it, public for those who can't.
So you took everything from the video that I said not to do and did it anyways. Fuck you and your high horse you rode in on. I am not going to debate the metaphysics of Universal Healthcare. I don't give a shit if you consider it more "moral" because I don't raise the issue of the morality of socialism in the video. Consider your-self blocked for extreme stupidity.
AP, I have no idea what system is best. You can cite, quite rightly, the failings; to be generous, of socialized systems. But the for profit system isn't much better or worse.
With the amount the USA pays for health care it should be what some Republican talk heads think it already is, the best in the world. The USA has the best if you are rich. for sure. America has great technology and pioneered some of it but in the WHO report the USA was 37th. You spend the most per capita in the world and come out at 37th. It is an atrocity.
Recently, talking' and crying, head Glenn Beck claimed that an Aussie lawmaker came to the US to get cancer treatment. I looked it up and could find nothing about it. Politicians can't go to the can without someone reporting it! I think the Beckster pulled this straight outta his ass!
I wouldn't be surprised if someone rich came to America to get treatment. It has the best technology and a lot of cutting edge treatments. They are for the haves and not the have nots.
His whole point was, because of Australia's healthcare system, a rich Aussie with power had to come here for treatment, he couldn't get in. And I couldn't find any proof of what he said. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places. I actually considered e-mailing Mr. Beck for the article that he used. Then I realized; he probably can't use a computer or read for that matter!
Interesting to see someone presenting a dispassionate libertarian alternative to universal healthcare.
unassumption 2 years ago
I pretty much had to. Everyone coming out heavly to one side and with no fariness to the issue.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Leviticus 19:27
And to this, God sayeth "Go suck a cock".
abaddon5 2 years ago
I don't know why, but I missed these two intro videos. It doesn't change my disagreements with your other videos, but it goes a long way toward understanding where you are coming from.
I'll stop trying to tell you that H.R.3200 isn't Universal Health Care (i.e. national health insurance and/or national health delivery).
I agree that it is unfair to say that a fee market wouldn't work. We don't have one and we don't even know what it looks like. I think a real free market would work.
zthustra 2 years ago
Canada system is a lot more efficient than the american system. A capitalist system will nevwer be better than a single payer system. You may be right as far as us not doing Universal healthcare the best, that just means you have so many examples to model your own after. What to do or not to do.
EvolvedOutlaw 2 years ago
Yes, because by definition charity cannot be forced. I don't mind a class where charities are lauded or they even go on field trips to view what happens. I just have a problem when you "require" charity. That is an Oxymoron!
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
It doesn't take many leaps of logic. You said "Universal health care is better because it is moral and efficient." Well I don't exclusively support Universal health care, er go... then I am not supporting something in some situations that is "not moral" .
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Oh come on! It just back in March this happened. I don't remember who I was watching but I know it wasn't Fox news. It was the Give Act I believe. What it specifically said that it would make mandatory for High schoolers or Middles schoolers that they do charity work or don't pass class. I think the bill passed but with that part dropped, obviously.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
That is fine but until that amendment is passed....
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
"Condescending or not, it is a relevant label. The activity of denying people health care very well may be immoral. I contend that it is."
Then real discussion will never happen because I do not support the denial of care. Yet still made the assumption that whatever I support is "immoral". When that just isn't the case. Jezuzfreak777 does the same thing about drugs. Osion (?) does the same thing about meat. A "moral" discussion is just simply fruitless.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
You have no idea how condescending labeling your opposition as "immoral" actually sounds. As I said I have no problem discussing the facts around health care, but when people start talking what is "morally superior choice" I know from experience no body cares to have a real discussion. It is just a talking-down-to-fest from there.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
There will always be problems with any healthcare system. But universal healthcare would solve many problems.
abaddon5 2 years ago 2
Well you are welcome to post a response to why you think that. But from what I know, I am just have to disagree.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Number one, people won't go bankrupt because of the cost of healthcare.
Private companies MUST make money for their shareholders by law. Actually paying out for people won't make them more money. So denying people care is better than giving it from a business standpoint.
abaddon5 2 years ago
But it is also illegal to defraud your customers. If you are not going to giving them health care then why are you taking their money?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
That's my point. We pay them to give us healthcare, but they don't want to pay for it. It's not profitable to actually pay out.
abaddon5 2 years ago
Because of current restrictions. The more people you insure, the easier it becomes to pay. But if the states (or HR 3200), decided what is going to be in YOUR plain then you cannot pick a cheaper one or pick a company you want to pick from. And so, insurance is not going to be cheep, which cause more to be uninsured, which causes it not to be cheep....
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Exactly. The more people you insure, the cheaper it becomes. That's especially true if the healthcare provider isn't doing it for profit, i.e. the government. Even if you have a lot of people being covered at an insurance company, actually paying out means that you're losing profit. Healthcare companies drop people all the time because of bullshit reasons. The government wouldn't.
abaddon5 2 years ago
Yeah, instead of just dropping you they will go, "Oh, sorry, fresh out. You will just have to wait your turn." The government has the uncanny ability to take plenty and turn it into a storage.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Yeah, you usually have to wait unless it's a dire emergency. Nathanforst is the best example of a Canadian who LOVES the healthcare his country gives him. Yes, he has to wait for things, but you have to wait for things here as well.
abaddon5 2 years ago
Of course it has some benefits but no system is perfect.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
What do you think about this?
The bailouts got pushed through incredibly fast even though they were so unpopular with the public at large. They got pushed through.
Health care reform which all polls show the public wants and it takes ages to happen and is being burdened with a lot of bullshit.
Your votes just select who the current puppets will be. The politicians in DC are just courtiers who distract the public from their real masters.
Corporations.
Democracy Inc.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 2
Which is why I support a lot of government reform and lobbying reform.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
My view is that It is the for profit system that is the problem. When the main motivation is profit and not well being of patients (in the current system they are customers not patients). I live in the UK and don't have to worry about becoming bankrupt after having health issues. Some questions.
Do you think that everything should be a commodity?
Do you think is it a moral imperative for the better off in society to help the lesser?
Mjhavok 2 years ago 2
"Do you think that everything should be a commodity?"
No, that why I am not an Anarcho-capitalist. I am a strict Constitutionalist. The government has responsibilities that are out-lined in the constitution. If the law does not follow those guidelines then it should not pass. If people feel that it is an important issue that the government should handle then an amendment should be made.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
"Do you think is it a moral imperative for the better off in society to help the lesser?"
You are using Kantian language here. So I am forced to say no because there are no such things as the "moral imperative". But to address the spirit of the question, charity cannot be forced. While helping those in need is a good thing, morality (or virtue) at the point of a gun is not morality. Remember when Obama wanted to make it law to force everyone to do charity work? Was that good or bad?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Plus like someone said before here, even crappy universal healthcare would be better than the current system. Health should just be a right, not a business.
SubjectOfInterest 2 years ago 2
Actually this reform wasn't event attempting to provide a universal healthcare. At best it would be a hybrid. Private for those who can afford it, public for those who can't.
SubjectOfInterest 2 years ago
Unfortunately, with a hybrid system you get the worst of both worlds instead of the best. It just better to have an either or.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
So you took everything from the video that I said not to do and did it anyways. Fuck you and your high horse you rode in on. I am not going to debate the metaphysics of Universal Healthcare. I don't give a shit if you consider it more "moral" because I don't raise the issue of the morality of socialism in the video. Consider your-self blocked for extreme stupidity.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
How is he asking you to debate metaphysics? Healthcare has real world implications for actual people.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
See my reply to variablast.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
The US can afford universal health care. How do you like the term "pre existing condition". I think it is immoral and sad.
a300pilotster 2 years ago
AP, I have no idea what system is best. You can cite, quite rightly, the failings; to be generous, of socialized systems. But the for profit system isn't much better or worse.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
With the amount the USA pays for health care it should be what some Republican talk heads think it already is, the best in the world. The USA has the best if you are rich. for sure. America has great technology and pioneered some of it but in the WHO report the USA was 37th. You spend the most per capita in the world and come out at 37th. It is an atrocity.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 3
Recently, talking' and crying, head Glenn Beck claimed that an Aussie lawmaker came to the US to get cancer treatment. I looked it up and could find nothing about it. Politicians can't go to the can without someone reporting it! I think the Beckster pulled this straight outta his ass!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if someone rich came to America to get treatment. It has the best technology and a lot of cutting edge treatments. They are for the haves and not the have nots.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
His whole point was, because of Australia's healthcare system, a rich Aussie with power had to come here for treatment, he couldn't get in. And I couldn't find any proof of what he said. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places. I actually considered e-mailing Mr. Beck for the article that he used. Then I realized; he probably can't use a computer or read for that matter!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago