Re: [Off topic] Socialized Medicine

[Guest guest]

--- McGuire wrote:

> ,

>  

> You should stay away from the medical system since you

> don't care very much for it

I try to take care of myself so that I don't need the medical system very often.

On the occasions that I do need it, I make use of it. Now, why should someone

like me, who rarely uses the medical system, be forced to pay for someone like

you, who regularly uses it? Are your medical problems my fault? And since I

generally don't care for the pharmaceutical drug based medical system, why don't

we have a medical system that includes and caters to my preference?

Regards,

[Guest guest]

In the context of this discussion, whether a system is " well run " or not has

little to do with the level of care you receive. If you have a system that

takes by force money from one person and gives it to another person, you have a

bad system, regardless of how good the facilities or care is. Whenever you have

a system that doesn't give you the choices you want, but forces you to pay for

it anyway, you have a bad system. That's what socialized medicine boils down

to.

Regards,

--- McGuire wrote:

<snip>

> Angie:

> the system I am currently benefiting from is not a bad

> system; it is a very good one. You are in no position to

> evaluate this system unless you have a chance to check it

> out.

>

> > Universal healthcare is a blessing for those who can

> get it

> > and if it is a well run system.

>

> :

>

> And what would you call a " well run system " ? You

> think that universal coverage for a " healthcare "

> system that often causes more harm than benefit is a

> blessing?

> Angie

>  You don't seem to know what you are talking about,

> I suppose. the facilities are good, and the care

> is standard. I have seen alternative practitioners, private

> doctors, etc. with varying degrees of quality. It just

> depends on how well managed the hospitals are run, and how

> well the doctors know their stuff. Perhaps you have had the

> misfortune of bad qualityMDs, and badly run facilities. 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

In the context of this discussion, whether a system is " well run " or not has

little to do with the level of care you receive. If you have a system that

takes by force money from one person and gives it to another person, you have a

bad system, regardless of how good the facilities or care is. Whenever you have

a system that doesn't give you the choices you want, but forces you to pay for

it anyway, you have a bad system. That's what socialized medicine boils down

to.

Regards,

--- McGuire wrote:

<snip>

> Angie:

> the system I am currently benefiting from is not a bad

> system; it is a very good one. You are in no position to

> evaluate this system unless you have a chance to check it

> out.

>

> > Universal healthcare is a blessing for those who can

> get it

> > and if it is a well run system.

>

> :

>

> And what would you call a " well run system " ? You

> think that universal coverage for a " healthcare "

> system that often causes more harm than benefit is a

> blessing?

> Angie

>  You don't seem to know what you are talking about,

> I suppose. the facilities are good, and the care

> is standard. I have seen alternative practitioners, private

> doctors, etc. with varying degrees of quality. It just

> depends on how well managed the hospitals are run, and how

> well the doctors know their stuff. Perhaps you have had the

> misfortune of bad qualityMDs, and badly run facilities. 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

In the context of this discussion, whether a system is " well run " or not has

little to do with the level of care you receive. If you have a system that

takes by force money from one person and gives it to another person, you have a

bad system, regardless of how good the facilities or care is. Whenever you have

a system that doesn't give you the choices you want, but forces you to pay for

it anyway, you have a bad system. That's what socialized medicine boils down

to.

Regards,

--- McGuire wrote:

<snip>

> Angie:

> the system I am currently benefiting from is not a bad

> system; it is a very good one. You are in no position to

> evaluate this system unless you have a chance to check it

> out.

>

> > Universal healthcare is a blessing for those who can

> get it

> > and if it is a well run system.

>

> :

>

> And what would you call a " well run system " ? You

> think that universal coverage for a " healthcare "

> system that often causes more harm than benefit is a

> blessing?

> Angie

>  You don't seem to know what you are talking about,

> I suppose. the facilities are good, and the care

> is standard. I have seen alternative practitioners, private

> doctors, etc. with varying degrees of quality. It just

> depends on how well managed the hospitals are run, and how

> well the doctors know their stuff. Perhaps you have had the

> misfortune of bad qualityMDs, and badly run facilities. 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

--- Randy wrote:

> So what you mean by freedom is that the affluent can buy

> whatever health

> care they want and the working poor get what they can

> afford--which is

> nothing. I get it--the poor deserve nothing because they

> can't afford it.

No, you don't get it. Freedom means equal opportunity to not be poor. It means

not being able to become rich by defrauding others. The reason working poor

can't afford health care is because the only option they're being given is too

expensive. The reason it's too expensive is because it's effectively a

monopoly. All people, regardless of whether they are rich or poor deserve the

right to have access to healthcare that is affordable. And why should the rich

be punished for being rich anyway? If someone is rich and can afford something

better, all power to them. What are you going to do, prevent them from buying a

better car or house because it's better than what you can afford? In my

country, if I was rich, I could use my money for all types of frivolous and

riotous living, but I can't use my money to buy better healthcare. Is that your

idea of a just system?

> They have the freedom to just die.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the rich die just as " freely "

even with the " better " care they can afford under the present monopolistic

system.

> Classic social

> Darwinism--survival of the

> fittest (or richest, in this case).

I am not advocating Darwinism; I am advocating freedom, which is a subject you

obviously don't understand. Socialistic systems have not eliminated poverty and

inequality. They have generally increased it. Increased equality is a side

effect of increased freedom.

> After all, why should a

> rich country

> find a way to provide ACCESS to health care for all its

> citizens?

Wake up! You are no longer a rich country. You are TRILLIONS of dollars in

debt. The only real way you could provide access to healthcare for all is to

provide them with the freedom to provide for their own access. Give someone a

fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Your

problem is that you want someone else to take care of you.

>How to pay

> for it? Why not do away with the private health insurance

> companies which do

> nothing but RATION health care and suck billions of $$ out

> of the system in

> order to pay huge executive salaries, dividends to

> stockholders, and armies

> of employees.

Why not do away with a " healthcare " system that requires you to have insurance

to afford it? You can't patch up a fundamentally flawed system.

> By your definition of freedom individuals would have to

> build their own

> roads and bridges. No relying on government! No such thing

> as public goods!

> People should be free of building codes and environmental

> regulations. The

> poor should be free to live in shacks without running water

> or electricity.

> We should all be free from government imposed clean air and

> water. Freedom

> freedom freedom!

You obviously have no idea what freedom is all about. There is a legitimate

function of government. Some of the things you mentioned are within the

legitimate function of government. And by the way, there are many more poor

people living in shacks without running water or electricity in communistic and

socialistic countries. There are even people in America that live under those

conditions. Even so, it would be better than living on the street like I see

even here in Toronto. You naively think that more government control over

people's lives and money will eliminate all poverty, when very often the reverse

is true.

> I get it, you're a real go-it-alone type. I see where

> you're coming from.

You do not see where I'm coming from. I am not a " go-it-alone " type. Not in

many things anyway. I like the idea of, " get by with a little help from my

friends " . I don't like the idea of a corrupt bureaucratic system taking the

majority of my money and then spoon-feeding me a few scraps back. I do not like

the idea of " Big Brother " taking care of me or dictating to me how I'm going to

live my life, or the healthcare I'm going to choose. Do you really like a

system where a stranger who happens to have a medical degree has the power to

force your child to receive toxic chemotherapy against your wishes? Do you like

the idea that he probably has a financial vested interest in doing so? Do you

think that socializing medicine will correct such a travesty of the fundamental

right to self determination?

> Well you can quit the incessant diatribes about freedom and

> quit stomping on

> anyone who has a contrary opinion from you.

I am not stomping on anyone with a contrary opinion, nor are my comments on

freedom diatribes. I am showing that freedom allows for better solutions to the

problems we're discussing.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Randy wrote:

> So what you mean by freedom is that the affluent can buy

> whatever health

> care they want and the working poor get what they can

> afford--which is

> nothing. I get it--the poor deserve nothing because they

> can't afford it.

No, you don't get it. Freedom means equal opportunity to not be poor. It means

not being able to become rich by defrauding others. The reason working poor

can't afford health care is because the only option they're being given is too

expensive. The reason it's too expensive is because it's effectively a

monopoly. All people, regardless of whether they are rich or poor deserve the

right to have access to healthcare that is affordable. And why should the rich

be punished for being rich anyway? If someone is rich and can afford something

better, all power to them. What are you going to do, prevent them from buying a

better car or house because it's better than what you can afford? In my

country, if I was rich, I could use my money for all types of frivolous and

riotous living, but I can't use my money to buy better healthcare. Is that your

idea of a just system?

> They have the freedom to just die.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the rich die just as " freely "

even with the " better " care they can afford under the present monopolistic

system.

> Classic social

> Darwinism--survival of the

> fittest (or richest, in this case).

I am not advocating Darwinism; I am advocating freedom, which is a subject you

obviously don't understand. Socialistic systems have not eliminated poverty and

inequality. They have generally increased it. Increased equality is a side

effect of increased freedom.

> After all, why should a

> rich country

> find a way to provide ACCESS to health care for all its

> citizens?

Wake up! You are no longer a rich country. You are TRILLIONS of dollars in

debt. The only real way you could provide access to healthcare for all is to

provide them with the freedom to provide for their own access. Give someone a

fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Your

problem is that you want someone else to take care of you.

>How to pay

> for it? Why not do away with the private health insurance

> companies which do

> nothing but RATION health care and suck billions of $$ out

> of the system in

> order to pay huge executive salaries, dividends to

> stockholders, and armies

> of employees.

Why not do away with a " healthcare " system that requires you to have insurance

to afford it? You can't patch up a fundamentally flawed system.

> By your definition of freedom individuals would have to

> build their own

> roads and bridges. No relying on government! No such thing

> as public goods!

> People should be free of building codes and environmental

> regulations. The

> poor should be free to live in shacks without running water

> or electricity.

> We should all be free from government imposed clean air and

> water. Freedom

> freedom freedom!

You obviously have no idea what freedom is all about. There is a legitimate

function of government. Some of the things you mentioned are within the

legitimate function of government. And by the way, there are many more poor

people living in shacks without running water or electricity in communistic and

socialistic countries. There are even people in America that live under those

conditions. Even so, it would be better than living on the street like I see

even here in Toronto. You naively think that more government control over

people's lives and money will eliminate all poverty, when very often the reverse

is true.

> I get it, you're a real go-it-alone type. I see where

> you're coming from.

You do not see where I'm coming from. I am not a " go-it-alone " type. Not in

many things anyway. I like the idea of, " get by with a little help from my

friends " . I don't like the idea of a corrupt bureaucratic system taking the

majority of my money and then spoon-feeding me a few scraps back. I do not like

the idea of " Big Brother " taking care of me or dictating to me how I'm going to

live my life, or the healthcare I'm going to choose. Do you really like a

system where a stranger who happens to have a medical degree has the power to

force your child to receive toxic chemotherapy against your wishes? Do you like

the idea that he probably has a financial vested interest in doing so? Do you

think that socializing medicine will correct such a travesty of the fundamental

right to self determination?

> Well you can quit the incessant diatribes about freedom and

> quit stomping on

> anyone who has a contrary opinion from you.

I am not stomping on anyone with a contrary opinion, nor are my comments on

freedom diatribes. I am showing that freedom allows for better solutions to the

problems we're discussing.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Randy wrote:

> So what you mean by freedom is that the affluent can buy

> whatever health

> care they want and the working poor get what they can

> afford--which is

> nothing. I get it--the poor deserve nothing because they

> can't afford it.

No, you don't get it. Freedom means equal opportunity to not be poor. It means

not being able to become rich by defrauding others. The reason working poor

can't afford health care is because the only option they're being given is too

expensive. The reason it's too expensive is because it's effectively a

monopoly. All people, regardless of whether they are rich or poor deserve the

right to have access to healthcare that is affordable. And why should the rich

be punished for being rich anyway? If someone is rich and can afford something

better, all power to them. What are you going to do, prevent them from buying a

better car or house because it's better than what you can afford? In my

country, if I was rich, I could use my money for all types of frivolous and

riotous living, but I can't use my money to buy better healthcare. Is that your

idea of a just system?

> They have the freedom to just die.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the rich die just as " freely "

even with the " better " care they can afford under the present monopolistic

system.

> Classic social

> Darwinism--survival of the

> fittest (or richest, in this case).

I am not advocating Darwinism; I am advocating freedom, which is a subject you

obviously don't understand. Socialistic systems have not eliminated poverty and

inequality. They have generally increased it. Increased equality is a side

effect of increased freedom.

> After all, why should a

> rich country

> find a way to provide ACCESS to health care for all its

> citizens?

Wake up! You are no longer a rich country. You are TRILLIONS of dollars in

debt. The only real way you could provide access to healthcare for all is to

provide them with the freedom to provide for their own access. Give someone a

fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Your

problem is that you want someone else to take care of you.

>How to pay

> for it? Why not do away with the private health insurance

> companies which do

> nothing but RATION health care and suck billions of $$ out

> of the system in

> order to pay huge executive salaries, dividends to

> stockholders, and armies

> of employees.

Why not do away with a " healthcare " system that requires you to have insurance

to afford it? You can't patch up a fundamentally flawed system.

> By your definition of freedom individuals would have to

> build their own

> roads and bridges. No relying on government! No such thing

> as public goods!

> People should be free of building codes and environmental

> regulations. The

> poor should be free to live in shacks without running water

> or electricity.

> We should all be free from government imposed clean air and

> water. Freedom

> freedom freedom!

You obviously have no idea what freedom is all about. There is a legitimate

function of government. Some of the things you mentioned are within the

legitimate function of government. And by the way, there are many more poor

people living in shacks without running water or electricity in communistic and

socialistic countries. There are even people in America that live under those

conditions. Even so, it would be better than living on the street like I see

even here in Toronto. You naively think that more government control over

people's lives and money will eliminate all poverty, when very often the reverse

is true.

> I get it, you're a real go-it-alone type. I see where

> you're coming from.

You do not see where I'm coming from. I am not a " go-it-alone " type. Not in

many things anyway. I like the idea of, " get by with a little help from my

friends " . I don't like the idea of a corrupt bureaucratic system taking the

majority of my money and then spoon-feeding me a few scraps back. I do not like

the idea of " Big Brother " taking care of me or dictating to me how I'm going to

live my life, or the healthcare I'm going to choose. Do you really like a

system where a stranger who happens to have a medical degree has the power to

force your child to receive toxic chemotherapy against your wishes? Do you like

the idea that he probably has a financial vested interest in doing so? Do you

think that socializing medicine will correct such a travesty of the fundamental

right to self determination?

> Well you can quit the incessant diatribes about freedom and

> quit stomping on

> anyone who has a contrary opinion from you.

I am not stomping on anyone with a contrary opinion, nor are my comments on

freedom diatribes. I am showing that freedom allows for better solutions to the

problems we're discussing.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- McGuire wrote:

> the neighbor would also be paying into the system. All

> benefit who participate in it.

No, all do not benefit. For a socialized system to work, some have to pay more

than they receive back. Someone like you with higher medical bills is

benefiting from the money that other people with lower or no medical bills pays.

The fact that there are more people now with high medical bills is why

socialized medical systems are collapsing.

> fails to acknowledge

> that it is cheaper to pool the funds.

I fail to acknowledge it because it's totally wrong. If you and I had our funds

of $100 each pooled together, we would have $200. Correct? Now if the

bureaucrat who is pooling our funds takes $50 for his administrative fee, we are

left with $150. How is that cheaper?

> the healthcare is for

> those who don't have it.

So then you admit that what you want to do is live at someone else's expense.

> HC is a right not a privaledge

> in a civilzed society.

Not at someone else's expense it isn't. Does a man have the right to rape a

woman because he has the " need " for sexual release? Would it be okay if society

said it was? Do you think society is more civilized today than it was in

earlier years?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; living at the expense of someone else

is not a right. It doesn't matter whether it's in regard to healthcare or

anything else. The only way you can live at someone else's expense is through

injustice. When you open that door, you set the stage for all the problems that

society faces today. Like the scripture says, " man has dominated man to his

injury " .

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- McGuire wrote:

> Private insurance is based on pooled funds.

Prices are still high with private insurance. Private insurance takes a huge

cut for administration and profit, which naturally means that there's less money

left to pay for people's medical bills. Things are not cheaper with private

insurance.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- McGuire wrote:

> Private insurance is based on pooled funds.

Prices are still high with private insurance. Private insurance takes a huge

cut for administration and profit, which naturally means that there's less money

left to pay for people's medical bills. Things are not cheaper with private

insurance.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- McGuire wrote:

> Private insurance is based on pooled funds.

Prices are still high with private insurance. Private insurance takes a huge

cut for administration and profit, which naturally means that there's less money

left to pay for people's medical bills. Things are not cheaper with private

insurance.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

The most important thing about private insurance is the fact that we can

voluntarily choose to participate or not. Force has always been the method used

by evil men.

Best wishes

Jeff

>

> > Private insurance is based on pooled funds.

>

>

> Prices are still high with private insurance. Private insurance takes a huge

cut for administration and profit, which naturally means that there's less money

left to pay for people's medical bills. Things are not cheaper with private

insurance.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- bob Larson wrote:

> ..i think that was her point. at least that's how i

> read it.

Her point was " that it is cheaper to pool the funds " .

Regards,