I could write an extremely long post involving a ton of philosophy and logic, but I think I can find the root differences and maybe even come to some sort of conclusion because if I have determined the root correctly it's something that has divided mankind for as long as he has been able to reason and argue about the welfare of others.
I'm pretty sure that you operate under the conclusion that man is inherently good and when given the option will do the right thing as long as he has the knowledge of right and wrong, won't game the system, and will help his fellow man because it's the "right thing to do". I'm also pretty sure that the majority of us arguing against your viewpoint on healthcare have come to the conclusion that man is not inherently good and will choose whatever benefits himself as long as the social structure allows him to do so (ie. if he doesn't face public ridicule), WILL game the system, and will value himself over others whenever possible, and that the majority of the people on this planet are this way. (Basically weigh the incentives and will choose whichever has the greatest benefits for him, whether that be socially, financially, or ethically)
In case you don't know, there is a wealth of information and facts supporting the latter of the two conclusions. Hell just turn on the TV and take a look at what the majority of content is featured on "the tube". And because we operate under the assumption of the latter conclusion we see things in a different light than your idealistic viewpoints. Yah if things were your way that would be great and life would be... well... ideal, but that's not the real world. I'm not saying don't do good things, if you are able to become a politician and actually "make a difference in the world", more power to you. The key word there is "if". You're extremely idealistic, so good luck with that, just don't be naive or even worse ignorant about the real world. (That's a suggestion, not meant offensively so don't take it that way.)
Label me however you want to, I couldn't care less. Call me an uncaring person, it's untrue but you can hold whatever opinion you want to that's the value of living in a free country. Me personally, I just live in the real world.
I am well aware that a lot of people game the system, and I realize that I am perhaps a bit to idealistic. However, if we don't set high standards, what do we have to strive for? I dunno, I'm probably just a silly 15 year old. As for the TV, I think it is far from an accurate representation of how many people in the world are good an how many are bad. I don't think you are an uncaring person, you just have a different viewpoint, which is fine. I may have shared yours a few months ago when I was a bit more libertarian.
Ohhhhhh see that explains it. Since you're 15 here's what I can offer you: "LISTEN TO YOUR ELDERS DAMMIT(at least on this forum, we're a pretty smart bunch here collectively)", no wonder you got so suckered into Moore's mockumentary. I think this can just get filed into the "You'll get it when you're older" threads. What I mean by this is you think you know all about things now, let me tell you from experience you don't know shit when your 15 (comparatively speaking). Bookmark this thread and look at it years down the road, at least after you're out of high-school, and you'll realize how much you've changed. And if you haven't... slap yourself. Sheesh, .
There's a quote that is often misappropriated to Winston Churchill. Also, the exact wording depends upon where you read it. Last I heard, people don't actually know exactly where the quote came from, but I still think it says a lot.
If you're a young person, and not a socialist, you have no heart. if you're an older person, and still a socialist, you have no brain.
Please don't tell me why I do nice things for other people. Perhaps you don't do things because it is the "right thing to do", but I do. I am crushed when I think of the living situation in other parts of the world.
Exactly, you feel bad that your life is better than others and you want to give to others because it makes you feel less guilty. You don't do it because it is what will produce the best possible outcome for us as a society. Besides, if you want to help them, giving them a free pass for everything is counter productive (i.e free healthcare, free food, free money, free housing, ect). You are treating the symptoms of why they have shitty living conditions. They will only become dependent upon these systems and will never pro-actively try to contribute to society. They will become leeches, holding back society and taking our money because they feel "entitled" to these things, without contributing anything back. The really only solution is to give them a quality education and see if they can make something of themselves. But they have to do it on their own!
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
I do listen to my elders, doesn't mean I have to agree with them =p.
And Scott, my mother told me a variant of that a little while back. I was listening to Michael Savage before I went to bed when I was 12 or so. Thank god I didn't stay on that track. I decided to look into it and it appears that it was first said by François Guizot.
Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
Hey, listen up. I'm 16, ok. You have every right to talk among these old codgers on equal ground. But one thing I learned here is that every opinion you have will come under fire, and that is the way it should be. It makes you double check that you have evidence to support your claims. It forces you to structure your argument in a coherent manner. Think, if the world was more like this forum where people challenged everything that other people said, we would have a lot less people like Sylvia Brown, and a lot less pseudoscience in general.
Even though you are young, like myself, your opinion still matters greatly and you should defend it to the end. Don't change your mind because some "elder" told you so, change it because you have been given enough evidence to make you feel otherwise.
Hey, listen up. I'm 16, ok. You have every right to talk among these old codgers on equal ground. But one thing I learned here is that every opinion you have will come under fire, and that is the way it should be. It makes you double check that you have evidence to support your claims. It forces you to structure your argument in a coherent manner. Think, if the world was more like this forum where people challenged everything that other people said, we would have a lot less people like Sylvia Brown, and a lot less pseudoscience in general.
Even though you are young, like myself, your opinion still matters greatly and you should defend it to the end. Don't change your mind because some "elder" told you so, change it because you have been given enough evidence to make you feel otherwise.
Trust me, I've never thought that my opinion was any less valid because of my age. I have enjoyed discussing things with people on an intellectual for once. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have said it, what I meant to say was "I'm probably very idealistic due to my young age."
I suppose we should just let all of those retarded people die?
Yes, we should, thins the gene pool so only people with good reasoning skills are left. Then again, I long ago gave up haing any compassion for others, so, base your opinion on me accordingly.
1) Did he cover how certain people are denied operations because they are too old? Or simply not worth it? 2) How about the fact that as long as you have the money you can get any operation you want in the US? 3) I work with a woman who used to live in Ireland. She has told me numerous stories of how you have to "grease the palms" of the doctor to get better appointments and such.
Moore never shows the whole picture, he only shows the part he wants you to see.
Also, until I got married, I was one of those "makes $50K+ per year but chooses not to have health insurance" people. Why? Because I am healthy! I know that most men (unlike woman) don't go to the doctor unless they have just caught off a major limb or someone else took them there while they were knocked-out! Why pay for something I have no intention of using?
Ryan, I didn't know you were 15 until you posted it. Your arguments are solid, and when they aren't you have backed it up with facts and counterpoints.
I am actually with you on this, but I am not sure that is a surprising coming from someone who thinks Norway is politically, financially, and socially where "it's at".
So I just watched SiCKO and I have to say that I am greatly impressed with Canada's, the UK's, France's and (surprisingly) Cuba's socialized medicine. I kind of want to live in Canada or Albion now, but then of course thats not the point of the movie (from my take on it,) but rather that we should make the US more like them and actually have socialized medicine so that we can take care of everyone.
And I think one of the Americans in France made a really good point, in France the government is afraid of the people, but here the people are afraid of the government. I think that this is the major hurdle that needs to be jumped before we can see things change for the better of the country as a whole. If people realized the government should be afraid of them I think we'd have more voter turn out, which would lead to better people in office, and thus better legislation. Heck maybe even a couple more political parties to fill in that gray area between communist, and that guy in the middle of Montana with his anti government compound.
I am for Universal health care, I do not believe that anyone should die because of the lack of money, life is precious and cannot measure with any amounts of money.
Almost everything government run can be done more effectively and at a lower cost by private businesses.
A government should exist to serve the people. Private enterprise exists to make a profit, and will generally only serve people as means to and end. Your argument assumes that government agencies will lose money to corruption, which is only conditionally true if people tolerate the corrupt people they elect. This is unfortunately so commonplace that it has been treated as fact by the vast majority of people, but this statement can not be used as a basis for a valid argument.
There best way I see to move forward in the long run is to just keep pumping money into medical science.
I would have to strongly disagree with this statement. Throwing money at a problem is never the right solution, as it often encourages corruption. It would be more wise to audit where the money we already spend actually goes.
A government should exist to serve the people. Private enterprise exists to make a profit, and will generally only serve people as means to and end. Your argument assumes that government agencies will lose money to corruption, which is only conditionally true if people tolerate the corrupt people they elect. This is unfortunately so commonplace that it has been treated as fact by the vast majority of people, but this statement can not be used as a basis for a valid argument.
Give me one example of a service that the government runs today which the private sector could not handle better. The military doesn't count.
Give me one example of a service that the government runs today which the private sector could not handle better. The military doesn't count.
Fire department. Go read about the first fire companies that ran for profit.
from Wikipedia: In many western countries, fire brigades were originally created by insurance companies to safeguard the property of their policyholders. Those who bought policies were given a plaque that would be mounted in a prominent position on the structure to denote its protected status. These plaques can still be seen on some historic buildings, particularly in the United Kingdom. Firemen summoned to burning buildings were expected to look for these plaques before fighting the fire. If the fire was in a building covered by a rival insurer, some brigades would deliberately obstruct that company's fire brigade in an attempt to give rise to greater property damage (and subsequent expense to the insurer).
Also, there is no reason why the military shouldn't count. After all, maintaining a common defense is one of the reasons that man first formed governments. Furthermore, lack of an example will not validate your statement.
The main issue is that the Government will almost never spend money in the most financially responsible way. You will always have the chance of encountering political grid lock and pork barrel politics. They will never need to be fiscally conservative with their money because they know they will always get it and they will waste it on needless issues. Sure, it would be great if government was always there to serve the people, lets face it, it's not possible right now. Most of Americans are apathetic to politics and most don't even vote. How are you supposed to vote out politicians when the majority doesn't vote? Politicians are able to get away with a shit ton right now. With private enterprise it's really easy to keep them under control. Stop giving them money. The problem with that today is that corporations have ingrained themselves in the government so that government regulations prevent competition. That is what we really need to stop. With healthy competition, there will always be a better solution to your problem in private enterprise.
I would have to strongly disagree with this statement. Throwing money at a problem is never the right solution, as it often encourages corruption. It would be more wise to audit where the money we already spend actually goes.
Oh, but of course. I also believe that that simply throwing money at a problem is not a solution, and that spending more wisely is often more effective than simply spending more. However, I see medical research as the only way to fully solve the problem. There really is no way to solve this problem without more science. Science is extremely expensive. Even if we spend that money as wisely as possible, we need to spend a lot more if we want to speed up the process.
Ryan, no offense, but when you start talking about how much you are willing to give to help other in the form of higher taxes, and I find out that you are 15, I call bullshit. How much have you paid into the tax system? How much money have you thrown down the toilet never to see again? If we did some simple math, with you being 15, and me having paid into the system as long as I have, and my income level, and the average income of someone your age, I'm betting we would find that I paid more in taxes last Friday than you have so far in your life. That is only including money that you have gone out and earned yourself, if you try the sales tax argument. Nothing against you, but I work my ass off, and I deal with the stress of having a job where multiple peoples' lives are on the line if I don't do my job right, so that I can make decent money and have decent medical coverage. And you know what? When I was your age, I saw the world the same way you do. Don't get me wrong, I do charity work. But once you see how much of your money the government is willing to piss away, your world view might just change. And this is coming from someone who works for the government, more or less.
Let's use the development of drugs as an example. In the clinical research process, the most expensive step is the initial research, which is already mostly subsidized by the government, and topped off by people paying college tuition, providing grants, paying fundraisers, etc. The second most expensive part is the actual clinical trial. This is performed at clinics and hospitals and doctors offices, which again is mostly subsidized by public moneys and supplemented patrons of the clinics.
All that is left for the pharmaceutical companies is to manufacture, market, and distribute the drugs. Although, this is not a trivial expense, it could never amount to what pharmaceutical companies claim as their R&D; costs. Most of the money is in fact consumed by corporations under the guise of research. You will hear people bitch and complain about how their tax money is being wasted, but will have no problem paying the research and development costs of a drug that they have already effectively paid through their taxes.
How is it that you can buy the same drugs for less money in Canada? Does it make any sense that we can export a drug to Canada, and it it would be cheaper to re-import it than to simply buy it from the local drug store? How can a drug company sell for a profit in Canada at those prices if they really need to pay so much for R&D;?
Put me in the camp with Ryan, I am a far left leaning idealistic person who believes that the Great Society was the right idea and we as human beings should help our fellow man. I don't feel bad about what I have. Sorry for shattering some preconceived notions, maybe it's some of the old stuff I learned in Catholic school haunting me.
Does anybody actually know which companies the movie focused on? Honestly, my family has been using private health insurance for my entire life. They paid for all of my mother's cancer treatment without a fight, and I've never had a problem getting the prescriptions I need with my insurance.
They don't just deny everything...yes, they do have a number of claims that they deny that they shouldn't. On the other hand...when you sign up for your policy, it's your own damn fault if you don't read everything. The details of what's not covered ARE available when you sign up. One of the problems these people are having is that they don't have the right insurance.
Also, they're going to the wrong hospitals...it cost $10,000 for Evan to have his entire ankle rebuilt, hardware installed, etc. That's without insurance...the whole procedure. I cannot imagine that re-attaching a finger is more complicated or time consuming than that. So either the hospital is completely out of line and the insurance was right to call bullshit, or the guy had something else seriously wrong. A cleanly severed finger isn't that hard to re-attach. Maybe if it had been ripped off, but not a clean cut.
They paid for all of my mother's cancer treatment without a fight, and I've never had a problem getting the prescriptions I need with my insurance.
This is anecdotal evidence. I'm glad that your mom got coverage, though not everyone is so lucky.
Also, they're going to the wrong hospitals...it cost $10,000 for Evan to have his entire ankle rebuilt, hardware installed, etc.
Things have different costs depending on a variety of factors including location of hospital, experience level of doctor, negotiation skills. In an emergency situation, one can hardly be faulted for not shopping around for the best deal.
This is anecdotal evidence. I'm glad that your mom got coverage, though not everyone is so lucky.
Well, showing us someone who did not get coverage is anecdotal as well. Can someone show a percentage of insurance claims that are accepted/denied and what were the circumstances of those claims?
Comments
I'm pretty sure that you operate under the conclusion that man is inherently good and when given the option will do the right thing as long as he has the knowledge of right and wrong, won't game the system, and will help his fellow man because it's the "right thing to do". I'm also pretty sure that the majority of us arguing against your viewpoint on healthcare have come to the conclusion that man is not inherently good and will choose whatever benefits himself as long as the social structure allows him to do so (ie. if he doesn't face public ridicule), WILL game the system, and will value himself over others whenever possible, and that the majority of the people on this planet are this way. (Basically weigh the incentives and will choose whichever has the greatest benefits for him, whether that be socially, financially, or ethically)
In case you don't know, there is a wealth of information and facts supporting the latter of the two conclusions. Hell just turn on the TV and take a look at what the majority of content is featured on "the tube". And because we operate under the assumption of the latter conclusion we see things in a different light than your idealistic viewpoints. Yah if things were your way that would be great and life would be... well... ideal, but that's not the real world. I'm not saying don't do good things, if you are able to become a politician and actually "make a difference in the world", more power to you. The key word there is "if". You're extremely idealistic, so good luck with that, just don't be naive or even worse ignorant about the real world. (That's a suggestion, not meant offensively so don't take it that way.)
Label me however you want to, I couldn't care less. Call me an uncaring person, it's untrue but you can hold whatever opinion you want to that's the value of living in a free country. Me personally, I just live in the real world.
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
And Scott, my mother told me a variant of that a little while back. I was listening to Michael Savage before I went to bed when I was 12 or so. Thank god I didn't stay on that track. I decided to look into it and it appears that it was first said by François Guizot.
Even though you are young, like myself, your opinion still matters greatly and you should defend it to the end. Don't change your mind because some "elder" told you so, change it because you have been given enough evidence to make you feel otherwise.
1) Did he cover how certain people are denied operations because they are too old? Or simply not worth it?
2) How about the fact that as long as you have the money you can get any operation you want in the US?
3) I work with a woman who used to live in Ireland. She has told me numerous stories of how you have to "grease the palms" of the doctor to get better appointments and such.
Moore never shows the whole picture, he only shows the part he wants you to see.
Also, until I got married, I was one of those "makes $50K+ per year but chooses not to have health insurance" people. Why? Because I am healthy! I know that most men (unlike woman) don't go to the doctor unless they have just caught off a major limb or someone else took them there while they were knocked-out! Why pay for something I have no intention of using?
I am actually with you on this, but I am not sure that is a surprising coming from someone who thinks Norway is politically, financially, and socially where "it's at".
And I think one of the Americans in France made a really good point, in France the government is afraid of the people, but here the people are afraid of the government. I think that this is the major hurdle that needs to be jumped before we can see things change for the better of the country as a whole. If people realized the government should be afraid of them I think we'd have more voter turn out, which would lead to better people in office, and thus better legislation. Heck maybe even a couple more political parties to fill in that gray area between communist, and that guy in the middle of Montana with his anti government compound.
Dead Meat, a short film everyone should watch.
from Wikipedia: In many western countries, fire brigades were originally created by insurance companies to safeguard the property of their policyholders. Those who bought policies were given a plaque that would be mounted in a prominent position on the structure to denote its protected status. These plaques can still be seen on some historic buildings, particularly in the United Kingdom. Firemen summoned to burning buildings were expected to look for these plaques before fighting the fire. If the fire was in a building covered by a rival insurer, some brigades would deliberately obstruct that company's fire brigade in an attempt to give rise to greater property damage (and subsequent expense to the insurer).
Also, there is no reason why the military shouldn't count. After all, maintaining a common defense is one of the reasons that man first formed governments. Furthermore, lack of an example will not validate your statement.
All that is left for the pharmaceutical companies is to manufacture, market, and distribute the drugs. Although, this is not a trivial expense, it could never amount to what pharmaceutical companies claim as their R&D; costs. Most of the money is in fact consumed by corporations under the guise of research. You will hear people bitch and complain about how their tax money is being wasted, but will have no problem paying the research and development costs of a drug that they have already effectively paid through their taxes.
How is it that you can buy the same drugs for less money in Canada? Does it make any sense that we can export a drug to Canada, and it it would be cheaper to re-import it than to simply buy it from the local drug store? How can a drug company sell for a profit in Canada at those prices if they really need to pay so much for R&D;?
They don't just deny everything...yes, they do have a number of claims that they deny that they shouldn't. On the other hand...when you sign up for your policy, it's your own damn fault if you don't read everything. The details of what's not covered ARE available when you sign up. One of the problems these people are having is that they don't have the right insurance.
Also, they're going to the wrong hospitals...it cost $10,000 for Evan to have his entire ankle rebuilt, hardware installed, etc. That's without insurance...the whole procedure. I cannot imagine that re-attaching a finger is more complicated or time consuming than that. So either the hospital is completely out of line and the insurance was right to call bullshit, or the guy had something else seriously wrong. A cleanly severed finger isn't that hard to re-attach. Maybe if it had been ripped off, but not a clean cut.