The Second Coming of the Great Political Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

Everybody pays the same. And you're not paying CHARITY for OTHER PEOPLE'S HALTH CARE. You're paying TAXES for YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH CARE. You don't seem to be realizing that. You contributing the same amount as every other tax payer (depending on whether it's state or federal of course) for the same exact service, so how it is all of a sudden 'charity' to pay taxes for you own health care I'm not quite following. Just because the money goes into a larger pool that distributes health care to all publicly rather than privately doesn't somehow magically turn it into charity.

Having fun on your high horse?

Contributing to a pool of money which exists in order to give services to those who can't afford it is, in fact, charity. The whole idea of the universal health care system is so that some people don't have to pay for it, so I really don't know what the hell kind of a point you think you have here.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A better approach would be to provide care to all taxpayers. Since a good tax system demands all to be equally burdened by taxes, everyone would be making an equal sacrifice in order to have health care provided. This would minimize abuse by illegals, which conservatives are always so concerned about. Even then, there are problems concerning emergency care, or illegals choosing not to be treated for risk of deportation (which actually happens now, I believe).

Yeah, I like that a lot better.

Please clarify what you mean by "problems concerning emergency care", though.

Part of the idea of the social contract involves giving up some degree of autonomy for the betterment of all. If people refrained from taxation and respected property rights to the extreme, there would never be things like purified public water sources that are clearly great for everybody. We would never have such systems unless people forfeited some property rights. And really, how is protecting people from being assaulted or killed any different from protecting them from bad water, or protecting them from illness? A libertarian system would see that a government agent prevents a potential murder, or breaks up a fight that could lead to injury. Of course this comes at an expense. Yet it is somehow different when people are threatened by disease, and the expense is no longer justified? I don't know what kind of person feels that people should be protected from harm at the hands of man only, but not from an illness.

Some public services are more justifiable than others. Obviously you have to have a military, otherwise you put your whole society at risk of destruction. Services like clean water and sewage work well because they're well-suited for mass deployment. Health care is much less cost-effective than either of those in terms of public welfare, and it's not something you can simply implement for everyone without the potential for abuse.

Doesn't the word "social" have some connotation of, you know, people interacting together? Too often the libertarian viewpoint seems to be concerned with allowing people to live in a bubble, free from anything they don't want.

I don't think I've been advocating a libertarian viewpoint (or, at least, if I have, I didn't mean to). There's always going to be a need for balance between the least possible suffering and the greatest possible autonomy. I'm just trying to show all the liberals here that people actually have different standards for where this balance lies, and that because of that you can't mandate a highly-liberal standard for everyone.

 

[The Ozzman]

Public works systems can be justified with taxes, of course. It's part of what the local governments need to survive.

 

[skeptik]

Having fun on your high horse?

Contributing to a pool of money which exists in order to give services to those who can't afford it is, in fact, charity. The whole idea of the universal health care system is so that some people don't have to pay for it, so I really don't know what the hell kind of a point you think you have here.

No it isn't you fucking stupid. Try again. There isn't even a "whole idea" of universal health care; there are dozens of different approaches to it, and 'free' health care is ONE of them, one which none of us are talking about. The universal health care plan that we are discussing is a plan that implements a publicly administered health care whose fee is incurred through taxes which are affordable to all tax-paying citizens. Not a system in which the rich are taxed so that the poor can get health care.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Please clarify what you mean by "problems concerning emergency care", though.

If someone who shouldn't be covered (illegals, maybe) shows up in an emergency room, you can't just not treat them. The costs have to be absorbed.

Some public services are more justifiable than others. Obviously you have to have a military, otherwise you put your whole society at risk of destruction. Services like clean water and sewage work well because they're well-suited for mass deployment. Health care is much less cost-effective than either of those in terms of public welfare, and it's not something you can simply implement for everyone without the potential for abuse.

I don't have hard data for this, but I'm pretty confident that a universal system has lower per capita costs, simply because the government won't be profit seeking like insurance companies. Not to mention due to scale

I don't think I've been advocating a libertarian viewpoint (or, at least, if I have, I didn't mean to). There's always going to be a need for balance between the least possible suffering and the greatest possible autonomy. I'm just trying to show all the liberals here that people actually have different standards for where this balance lies, and that because of that you can't mandate a highly-liberal standard for everyone.

I was just making a general point.

Here's something I've been meaning to bring up. I would urge everyone who has been partaking in this discussion to skim these two articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_medical_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Information_Systems_and_Technology_Architecture

Here are the points I find salient, since there's really no need to read the entire thing.

Regarding the first:

As of 2006, adoption of EMRs and other health information technology, such as computer physician order entry (CPOE), has been minimal in the United States. Less than 10% of American hospitals have implemented health information technology,[2] while a mere 16% of primary care physicians use EHRs.[3] The vast majority of healthcare transactions in the United States still take place on paper, a system that has remained unchanged since the 1950s. The healthcare industry spends only 2% of gross revenues on HIT, which is meager compared to other information intensive industries such as finance, which spend upwards of 10%.[4]

I find this terrifying. You can go on to read in the article that it's really hard to integrate, and there are many obstacles. When a project is so colossal, you need the federal government to do it.

If you have doubts about the government's ability to implement this sort of thing successfully, look at VhistA.

By 2001, the VHA was the largest single medical system in the United States, providing care to 4 million veterans, employing 180,000 medical personnel and operating 163 hospitals, over 800 clinics and 135 nursing homes.[2] By providing electronic health records capability, VistA is thereby one of the most widely used EHRs in the world.

The adoption of VistA has allowed the VA to achieve a ******** prescription accuracy rate of 99.997%, and the VA outperforms most public sector hospitals on a variety of criteria, enabled by the implementation of VistA.[4]

This flies in the face of Ozzman's argument that care would worsen under a universal system. Computerized records would massively improve care for everybody. The only feasible way to accomplish this asap is by government takeover.

EDIT: I guess ph@rmacy is a banned word here.

 

[The Ozzman]

This might have more substance if it was implemented over a larger population of people. I'm still not convinced.

 

[cookiecutter]

What are you even arguing against anymore? It seems like you are just creating strawmen. I don't think any of us are talking about the method of implementation, just what should be implemented.

 

[The Ozzman]

Yeah, I don't know what I'm arguing about. I thought he said something about implementation, but I was wrong.

I took it out.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No it isn't you fucking stupid. Try again. There isn't even a "whole idea" of universal health care; there are dozens of different approaches to it, and 'free' health care is ONE of them, one which none of us are talking about. The universal health care plan that we are discussing is a plan that implements a publicly administered health care whose fee is incurred through taxes which are affordable to all tax-paying citizens. Not a system in which the rich are taxed so that the poor can get health care.

The only reason we're even talking about universal health care in the first place is because it's meant to give people health care that they could not otherwise afford. Unless you actually make a decent case for government-funded health care being more cost-effective (which I don't recall you doing), the only reason a universal health care system would exist is to get the people who can afford health care to support the people who can't - which means richer people giving money to poorer people, which is pretty much the definition of charity.

Lay off your fucking juvenile know-it-all attitude for a while and try actually making points instead of just bullying people around in debates. You're not smarter than everyone else, and even if you do have a point somewhere in your arrogant rants, no one's going to listen to you if all you care about is making yourself sound superior to everyone.

 

[skeptik]

Look, it's not my fault that you're too stupid to follow along with the argument. It doesn't mean, however, that my argument is flawed. First of all "richer people giving money to poorer people" is not "pretty much" what charity is, contrary to your previous statement. The reason for universal health care to exist is not so rich people can pay for the health care of poor people. The reason for universal health care is to allow everyone to have adequate health care. The "reason" to have universal health care has nothing whatsoever to do with money, and should not even be an issue. The fact that money is so continually and unconsciously brought into the discussion, let alone as a defense against allowing poor people to have health care, frankly is disheartening. Money should not even be factored into the equation until after the fact. And even if it comes down to requiring a taxation of rich people more than poor people or even some type of pardon for people who truly can in no way afford it, so fucking be it. Another man's life is more important than my money, your money, and everyone else's money. Somebody shouldn't have to die simply because somebody else didn't want to contribute to a universal health care tax plan. Fuck off with your "cost-effective" rhetoric; this isn't about cost, it's about getting essential resources to ALL people, not just people who can afford it.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Look, it's not my fault that you're too stupid to follow along with the argument. It doesn't mean, however, that my argument is flawed. First of all "richer people giving money to poorer people" is not "pretty much" what charity is, contrary to your previous statement. The reason for universal health care to exist is not so rich people can pay for the health care of poor people. The reason for universal health care is to allow everyone to have adequate health care. The "reason" to have universal health care has nothing whatsoever to do with money, and should not even be an issue. The fact that money is so continually and unconsciously brought into the discussion, let alone as a defense against allowing poor people to have health care, frankly is disheartening. Money should not even be factored into the equation until after the fact. And even if it comes down to requiring a taxation of rich people more than poor people or even some type of pardon for people who truly can in no way afford it, so fucking be it. Another man's life is more important than my money, your money, and everyone else's money. Somebody shouldn't have to die simply because somebody else didn't want to contribute to a universal health care tax plan. Fuck off with your "cost-effective" rhetoric; this isn't about cost, it's about getting essential resources to ALL people, not just people who can afford it.

I know you aren't directing this all at me, but the reason I have brought up the economic/procedural issues so many times, is that the philosophical arguments made by you, me, cookiecutter, and others are either going ignored, or being dismissed by "I disagree"-type arguments. When one can present arguments with some empirical info, along with the philosophical arguments that have been made often, it becomes harder for the opposition to disagree (at least it should be).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The fact that money is so continually and unconsciously brought into the discussion, let alone as a defense against allowing poor people to have health care, frankly is disheartening.

I can bring whatever I want into the discussion, because it's a fucking discussion, and as such, one is generally expected to have an open mind and to consider opposing viewpoints. If this is so beyond your capability, then I don't think "discussion" is the word you're looking for.

Believe it or not, I have not actually made up my mind on this topic. I mentioned that earlier, as a matter of fact. I enjoy talking about this topic here because it's a controversial issue with interesting arguments on both sides (or however many sides there are). The outcome of our little chat is not going to decide national policy or anything; so if people want to bring up money, then fucking deal with it.

First of all "richer people giving money to poorer people" is not "pretty much" what charity is, contrary to your previous statement. The reason for universal health care to exist is not so rich people can pay for the health care of poor people.

And even if it comes down to requiring a taxation of rich people more than poor people or even some type of pardon for people who truly can in no way afford it, so fucking be it.

How about you actually make up your mind on whether universal health care amounts to the rich paying for the poor before you make that the springboard of your next ad hominem? I'm getting pretty tired of your utter lack of ability to debate - or to be a mature human being.

 

[The Ozzman]

Fuck off with your "cost-effective" rhetoric; this isn't about cost, it's about getting essential resources to ALL people, not just people who can afford it.

Except it's always about cost. Anything dealing with economics almost always involves cost. it's a main issue.

 

[skeptik]

If you're a fucking jew.

I can bring whatever I want into the discussion, because it's a fucking discussion, and as such, one is generally expected to have an open mind and to consider opposing viewpoints. If this is so beyond your capability, then I don't think "discussion" is the word you're looking for.

You expect me not to use ad hominems, yet use them liberally yourself.

Read my post again and point out to me where I said that money should never be discussed. I said that money is to be accounted for after a plan has been established (i.e. a plan shouldn't be rejected because it's not financially lucrative for insurance suppliers). But yes, you're clearly right, I have no debating skills and this is clearly "beyond" my "capability" based on the dozens of arguments that I've had on this board. Have you ever had a noteworthy contribution to any discussion ever on this forum?

Believe it or not, I have not actually made up my mind on this topic. I mentioned that earlier, as a matter of fact. I enjoy talking about this topic here because it's a controversial issue with interesting arguments on both sides (or however many sides there are).

Irrelevant.

The outcome of our little chat is not going to decide national policy or anything; so if people want to bring up money, then fucking deal with it.

This is retarded to say, but okay.

How about you actually make up your mind on whether universal health care amounts to the rich paying for the poor before you make that the springboard of your next ad hominem? I'm getting pretty tired of your utter lack of ability to debate - or to be a mature human being.

Universal health care does not amount to any one thing, which was the point I was making you dense fuck. But you're too busy trying to discredit me and my 'debate skills' to actually note any of the god damn things that I'm saying. How about you start over instead of jumping in and accusing me of being on a high horse?

 

[The Ozzman]

Except that's how it is with any economic policy, not just because people are 'jews', you fucking faggot. I'm pretty sure politicans don't ask 'How many people will this benefit?', they will instead ask 'How much will this cost everyone?'

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

lmao

 

[skeptik]

I'm not talking about politics, and the jew comment was obviously a joke you homosexual amputee. My argument against the primary focus on money is from a philosophical perspective. We should first decide whether or not universal health care is a worthwhile idea on a philosophical level, and if it is, how valuable it is. By doing this, we can help determine how much the 'value' of this ideal can outweigh monetary troubles that may arise in practical application.

 

[The Ozzman]

I seriously laughed at the 'homosexual amputee' comment

 

[skeptik]

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I seriously laughed at the 'homosexual amputee' comment

I lol'd at both that and the jew comment.



edit: I'll get back to you in a while on your points, Nec. I need a break from here first.