It is the Moral Thing to Do
In a recent presidential debate, the candidates were asked, “Is health care a right or a responsibility?” The National Physicians Alliance believes it is both. Yet in the United States, formidable barriers stand between patients and ideal medical care. Not only is it difficult for many people to acquire health insurance, but even those with coverage are seeing costs rise.
At a time when patients and their families are already overwhelmed by the financial, emotional, and time demands of interacting with today's health care system, a movement is underway to make the situation even worse. Insurers and corporations are sneakily shifting the financial burden onto everyday Americans by driving patients into high deductible, high co-pay plans that offer little protection when a person actually needs medical care. Half of all bankruptcies are now due to medical problems, and in most of these cases, the person declaring bankruptcy had medical insurance. This trend of burden-shifting has been promoted under the misleading label of "consumer-directed health care." Make no mistake: these plans benefit influential insurers and payers, at a high price to actual consumers. The new Medicare drug plan and "health savings accounts" are two prominent examples of this effort to shift costs to patients—and both are contributing to the dissolution of what it even means to be insured. The United States may be approaching a time when the word "insured" is nothing but an empty shell, useful for political tabulations but meaningless for patients. The NPA believes we must have true patient-driven health care by resisting high-deductible health plan proposals and prioritizing accessible, high quality health care for all people.
There are many different options to finance and administer guaranteed, quality, affordable health care and mechanism has its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, we endorse the five principles of health care reform identified by the Institute of Medicine as the basis for a just and moral health care system:
1. Health care coverage should be universal.
1. No one should be excluded based on poor health status, a pre-existing condition or chronic illness.
2. There should be few or no administrative barriers to obtaining or renewing insurance.
3. Coverage should be guaranteed to all persons in the United States.
2. Health care coverage should be continuous.
1. Everyone should have access to a primary care provider and medical home throughout their lifespan.
2. Continuous coverage must be transportable across employment, unemployment or geographic relocation.
3. Health care coverage should be affordable to individuals and families.
1. Every American should have access to insurance premium they can afford. Financial assistance will be necessary for lower-income people.
2. Co-pays and deductibles present a barrier to care for low-income people. They tend to discourage people from obtaining necessary medical care. We oppose co-payments that impose significant financial barriers to care.
4. The health insurance strategy should be affordable and sustainable for society.
1. Physicians and other health care providers must place renewed emphasis on the stewardship of clinical resources.
2. Costs should be distributed equitably across the entire population.
3. Any reform should minimize administrative cost, and simplify enrollment, underwriting, and billing procedures.
4. The government should be able to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical and medical device companies to ensure quality, low-cost medications for all.
5. Health insurance should enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered, and equitable.
1. Basic benefit packages must include preventive and screening services, prescription drugs, dental care, and mental health care as well as outpatient and hospital services.
2. Payment strategies should promote evidence-based medical care.
3. Reforms such as malpractice reform should promote patient safety and enhance patient care.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
One thing I can't understand about the argument against universal health care is the vehemence with which many say that it would be taking away from people who worked hard to give to those who didn't earn it.
I would understand if the government was taking cash from some to give cash to others, who could then spend it on whatever they want. But in the case of heathcare, the overwhelming majority of the uninsured do work. And by getting healthcare , they will be in a better position to work more and be more productive. It has nothing to do with "earning" it because many people doing useful jobs in our economy work for companies who simply can't afford to, or refuse to, provide them with healthcare.
To the opponents, no one is trying to change the way you think about the poor or government giving. I don't care if you want to keep clinging to the notion that the world is divided between people who work hard and the lazy who live off everyone else. But in the end, when we do have health care reform , it will improve the moral standing of this country, whether everyone agrees with it or not.
Don’t confuse access to ideal health care to access to ideal medical insurance. All Americans have access to ideal medical care. The problem is affordability. The rich can afford it, the middle class may go bankrupt, and the poor is subsidized.
First we ask ourselves why we pay the most for health care as compared to other rich nations on earth. The simple answers are: Because our standards are high; Because in addition to the actual cost of the medical care administered to paying patients, added are the cost of lawyers’, courts’ and insurance fees, government imposed taxes , FDA regulations adherence fees, illegal non-paying immigrant medical expenses, etc. These added cost, other than private insurance cost, will still exist whether we have government run universal health care or not.
Let’s ask ourselves what services private medical insurance providers do for us in return for profits the National Physician Alliance (NPA) might consider to be hefty? They screen procedures, tests, medicines and services administered to the insured patients, and screen and pay insurance claims.
Will expensive bureaucratic government employees be more efficient than less expensive private insurance employees? Will universal health care be run like the US Postal Service, AMTRAK or our public school system? If we like quality service from privately run medical care provider are we going to pay for both the public and the private plan? Will it be like families who chose to send their kids to efficient private school and ended up paying for both?
We already have universal health care It just doesn't work very well. The poor get health care , but who pays for it? When a hospital writes off a bill who pays? Most of the people who go bankrupt because of hospital bills had health insurance . The question isn't do we need health reform. But how do we fix the problems?
"the question isn't do we need health reform. But how do we fix the problems?"
That is reform.
I have to be more careful before I have my morning coffee...
The extent of our Universal Health Care is the requirement that hospitals treat anyone in need of emergency care. This is expensive, as a problem has to be very severe before it 'needs' emergency care.
Expanding coverage will help reduce these costs by treating problems before they become emergencies... and keeping the population healthier.
The problem with health care reform is it is being treated in the media as a choice between Obama's plan or nothing. Being for reform then means supporting Obama.
That is because the Republicans have yet to offer a formulated counter plan.
What about John Mackey?
There are some interesting ideas in his op-ed. However he seems to be missing the mark in more then a few places. The most glaring is in his first point, where he describes how his employees have ' universal health care ' while they work for Whole Foods... but does not say that it apples to former employees as well.
Now it would not be expected that a company pay for the health care costs of former and current employees... but the fact that Whole Foods does pay all costs is telling, and seems contradictory to his opposition to universal health care.
Point four also stands out rather glaringly...
"4. Repeal all government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance many billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual health insurance customer preferences and not through special interest lobbying."
Removing mandated coverage elements would be caving into the insurance industries lobbying...
Point eight seems rather odd as well...
"8. Permit individuals to make voluntary tax deductible donations on their IRS tax forms to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or any other government program."
makes it sound as though a significant amount of funding could be received through voluntary donations... but what evidence does he offer to support it?
This is also an op-ed piece, where is the full on Republican bill?
The point I am making is that there are other ideas out there. As for the Republicans there are a few ideas but mostly it's just not Obama. I don't know if the media is not reporting their ideas or if the Republicans just totally don't get it.
What is moral about forcing every single citizen into a single-payer system? What is moral about taking someone's hard-earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
The points made in this article sound very nice on the surface. But there is no workable plan to accomplish them. It is one thing to say "everybody has a right to health care ", it is another thing to be able to accomplish it.
The health care system in this country can be fixed very easily. How about lowering taxes on medical providers?
Nobody has a right to live off other people's labor.
We should all do our very best to lend a hand to help others, I'm all for that, but to let the Government oversea it and manage the money ! and schedule surgeries? Please, wake up!
Obviously, some of you have no idea what that means. I used to process Medicare insurance claims, what a joke. They decide what they feel is medically neccessary, not you or your Doctor! If they don't want to pay the claim, well it's final, it's not open for discussion and/or negotiations, it's just what somebody in the Government decided. Period.
And when they do decide to pay, let me give you some examples:
1>Flu Shot $15 Medicare approved amount $3 paid at 80% $2.40 to the DR.
Doctors out of pocket cost $10 plus labor for the nurse, overhead exp, etc. - And the Dr. must write off the balance of $12, the patient is billed $.60
2>Office visit $100, physical therapy $50 - Total billed $150
Medicare allowed $24 @ 80% $19.20 on the office visit, $0 on the physical therapy- deemed not medically neccessary. The Dr. gets a check for $19.20, must write of $76, the patient is billed $54.80
Who do you think wins here, right, the Government should, only they have paid out double or triple just to process these small checks!!
When you have to call Medicare with a question, and trust me this happens frequently, you are only allowed to ask 3 questions, if you have 4 questions, you can ask the 3 and then hang up and call back, wait on hold another 45 minutes to ask the 4th question.
If you have never dealt with these issues, you simply can't imagine how bad it is, I'm not exagerating, ask around. Surely you know an elderly person on Medicare, an insurance clerk, anybody that has had to deal with it.
Part 2 - Currently most Doctors pretty much accept Medicare, some because they want to help the elderly, as frustrating and expensive as it is, the paperwork involved is unreal. That is one reason we keep seeing an increase in the cost of doctor visits, to make up what they are loosing in Medicare acceptance costs. If it is all Universal Healthcare paid by the Government, you will see a flood of doctors stop practicing, it will no longer be profitable and full of regulations. Just ask your doctor his opinion on your next visit. We will have a shortage of doctors.
Part 3: We are already seeing taxes going up on everything. Take the sin taxes for example. One example: Sodas are now going to have a higher tax, because they are unhealthy. What happens when they decide you weigh to much, your too fat to have sugery? Don't think that will happen, think again, there are already talking about it: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/consumer/a/aathinner.htm
maybe you are the ideal weight, but what your friend, or family member that is 20 lbs. overweight, do you want the Government to deny them benefits? If you say yes, then what's right about that?
So please people, think about it, this is not good for our country!
Last but not least, do your research on country's that have universal health care , how are they doing?
And Canada's system is so great that Canadians leave their country to come to the US for many procedures that they have to wait months in line for in Canada.
No less than a board of Canadian surgeons has urged the US not to enact a socialized medical system.
Did you know a recent poll said if you are diagnosed with cancer you will start treatment in approx. 3 weeks here in the US, in other country's with Universal healthcare , the average waiting period for cancer patients to begin treatment is 9 months! That is crucial when you are diagnosed with the deadly disease of cancer. But this is standard even for emergency surgery, alot don't even last long enough for the surgery. So if this is what you want, that is what you will get! Don't take my word, do your research, cause if universal healthcare goes through, we will probably never be able to go back to the way it was!
"Morality ends where a gun begins"- Ayn Rand
On what basis does one call government-run "universal health care" "the moral thing to do"?
It is only the morality of altruism...the creed that holds individual human sacrifice for a "higher" purpose as the standard of the good...that can sanction any proposal to force others to act against his own will, judgement, and self-interest. But altruism is really an anti-morality, which offers a person no moral guidance on how to achieve the values required for his survival and happiness, but rather simply declares that he is moral only to the extent that he gives up his values for the sake of others...any others.
That is why altruism is always the justification for all forms of tyranny, including government-imposed "universal health care", which is merely a health care dictatorship in disguise. A consumer's right to decide for himself whether and what type of health insurance to purchase; An insurance company's right to determine what insurance products it will offer, based upon its own market judgement; A doctor's right to choose his patients, the treatments to pursue, and the price he will charge; The rights of consumers, insurance companies, and doctors to negotiate and contract voluntarily with each other to mutual advantage; The rights of all people to decide whether, when, what type, and what level of voluntary charitable giving to offer others...these are all merely selfish concerns, according to altruist principles, of no consequence next to a government takeover of a major industry.
It's quite all right for the government to trample and sacrifice the rights of people acting in their own self-interest. It's quite all right to sacrifice the earnings, the healthcare decision-making, the careers, the goals, the personal judgements, and the business decisions of private citizens. It's quite all right to hand enormous coercive dictatorial power over other peoples' lives to "altruistic" central planning bureaucrats. It is quite all right to bestow unearned benefits obtained forcibly from the sacrificial victims of an altruistic state on those who did not earn them, but for whom it is apparently o.k. to selfishly accept their stolen property.
Well, the game is nearing an end. Tyrants, "social justice" totalitarians, humanitarians with a "good cause" in one hand and the lever of a guillotine in the other, and all manner of politically-connected do-gooders have been riding the altruistic gravy train long enough.
All of the "should be" goals listed by the National Physicians' Alliance are desirable when taken out of context. But a government that attempts to achieve those ends can only do so through the power to loot and enslave, which ultimately leads to the opposite results. It is an immoral government. So now let it be said. No one who would use initiative physical force, including "democratic" or "legislative" force, against his fellow citizens to achieve his ends…no matter how worthwhile…can wave the banner of morality. That banner belongs only to people who renounce the initiation of physical force, and turn instead to respecting and protecting individual rights...everyone's rights equally and at all times.
And that means, in the field of medicine, pursuing the moral goal of phasing out the current crumbling government-hampered system, and establishing a completely free market.
Now that would be the moral thing to do.
There's no such thing as altruism. Everyone is selfish. It doesn't matter if they're doing things supposedly for someone else... it's always done out of self-interest.
Always.
Anything done that is "altruistic" is done for the individual doing the act because it will benefit that person.
But you wouldn't know that because you're so up Ayn Rand's ass.... she's a second rate philosopher anyway. Excellent writer, though.
"There's no such thing as altruism. Everyone is selfish."
So how exactly would public ownership of the means of production address this?
"It doesn't matter if they're doing things supposedly for someone else... it's always done out of self-interest."
So all those who died on 9/11 trying to save others where saving them out of self-interest. Good to know.
"Anything done that is "altruistic" is done for the individual doing the act because it will benefit that person."
Can you explain the following under that assumption:
http://www.doubleazone.com/2009/01/depauw_softball_megan_soultz_us_airways_airplane_crash_hudson_river_flight_1549.php
"But you wouldn't know that because you're so up Ayn Rand's ass.... she's a second rate philosopher anyway. Excellent writer, though."
Sure as hell better than Marx. At least her ideas didn't result in the deaths of over 100 million people.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1316649.php /BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism
I would highly recommend "The Black book of Communism." My only criticism is that it makes the holocaust look like a Disney movie (somewhat).
....thanks, but that's not communism. It's a distortion.
How many people died under the distortion of capitalism? I don't know... but quite a lot. People still do because "capitalism" supports "communism". Or, maybe you haven't noticed that production has all but ceased here and has been moved to places where profit is maximized but at a human cost?
Now... it's a common idea that there's no such thing as altruism. It's an argument. That's all..... and it's a very easy argument to make and a hard one to argue against.
But what about Mother Theresa?... but what about some regular person? Greater reward.... that's why. Mother Theresa did all those things because of the ultimate, and purely selfish act of getting into heaven.
It doesn't mean you don't appreciate human life.... but acting in self-interest is the reason behind most actions. I made my new neighbors vegan brownies because I want them to like me... that way they'll call 911 if my house is on fire. Purely selfish.... but I do think they're nice people and I hope they enjoy the brownies (which were Not goopy, amazingly).
"....thanks, but that's not communism. It's a distortion."
It's okay, other people have tried to insist the same thing. If I supported a type of society which killed millions I would probably say the same thing. The main advantage the authors of this book had over others is that they had full access to KGB archives, among other things.
"How many people died under the distortion of capitalism? I don't know... but quite a lot."
Probably had nothing to do with capitalism though, I'm pretty sure of that.
"People still do because "capitalism" supports "communism"."
How so???
"Or, maybe you haven't noticed that production has all but ceased here and has been moved to places where profit is maximized but at a human cost?"
Ah yes, that human cost. That horrible cost of giving people an incentive to produce more leading to more compensation and soon more innovation.
"Now... it's a common idea that there's no such thing as altruism. It's an argument. That's all..... and it's a very easy argument to make and a hard one to argue against."
It's easy to argue against, but convincing someone who is convinced no such thing exists is indeed a challenge (QED).
"But what about Mother Theresa?... but what about some regular person? Greater reward.... that's why."
So the people who risk death for no compensation are doing it for some random award? Why so?
"Mother Theresa did all those things because of the ultimate, and purely selfish act of getting into heaven."
Why go through all the trouble that she went through if she could have just as easily achieved the same means without the hassle of helping complete strangers?
"It doesn't mean you don't appreciate human life.... but acting in self-interest is the reason behind most actions."
I can agree with this statement to an extent. How a non-capitalist society can "solve" this "problem" is beyond me.
"I made my new neighbors vegan brownies because I want them to like me... that way they'll call 911 if my house is on fire."
Do you know FOR SURE that they will call 911 if your house catches fire?
"Purely selfish.... but I do think they're nice people and I hope they enjoy the brownies (which were Not goopy, amazingly)."
That's nothing compared to baking a chicken that isn't dry (at least for me it is).
moisturize.... but with olive oil not with handcreme.
i don't. know if my new neighbors will call 911, that is. but i act nicely out of self-interest and hope it works.
nothing is ever just one system and one system alone. none of them work separately. nothing may ever work except more than temporarily, for that matter.
because she also wanted attention.
as do the people who risk death for no obvious rewards. the act may be "good" but the intentions are still motivated by selfish reasons.
not really, because all those people are under the thumb of those who make OTHERS work harder while they receive more compensation. remember... china is your version of "communism". they don't have a choice. or else it wouldn't be communist china.
how does the u.s. Not support china? who in turn support "ethnic cleansing" and killing buddhists?
like i said.. it was a distortion of capitalism. the corruption of capitalism by the will-to- power (i've been nietzsche-ized... i can't help it. i've read 4 of his books in the past 5 weeks). and that revolution of the worker only led to exactly what they revolutionaried it up for in the first place.
communism isn't supposed to be totalitarianistic. it's lack... absolute lack... of any state. frikking durh. you can't have communism if you've a state. you only have a distortion of communism. so therefore.... you're probably more of a communist than you think if you don't want a state.
"nothing is ever just one system and one system alone. none of them work separately. nothing may ever work except more than temporarily, for that matter."
I can agree with that more than anything, especially after reading "I, Pencil" several dozen times, then began to loathe central planning even more.
As for everything else in your comment, you've lost me. Please rephrase.
i responded to your respondings from the bottom upward. apply as such.
If you really want to be a follower of Ayn Rand, it might be better if you *think for yourself*. Reason and observation are key elements to her philosophy. So let's use them.
Look at history. Observe the past. How did we even get to be where we are today in this nation? Is not the notion that all men are created equal a direct affront to anti-socialists? How does any nation overcome the tyranny of the ruling class under which the masses suffered?
Look at the history of man and how we gotten to be where we are today. History keeps repeating itself because there is this lie that has been believed that it is wrong to accept the enslavement of a small group who holds power over the needs... not wants... of all society - all men. That socialism in any shape or form is wrong. Capitalism is fine for the things that we want, but do not need. It is what promotes the middle class and tears to pieces Marx's theory. But history has shown us what occurs when what humans need is held up for sale to the highest bidder and those who can afford it. History has also shown us that those who control those supposed "markets" of what is strictly a need are also the ones who can afford to exert such power and the abuse they reek upon the rest of SOCIETY. En mass.
When one small group holds power over the needs of the masses, it is not the masses who are enslaving themselves to make the "need" available to all; it is the small group who holds the power who holds the masses enslaved to their own desires. It is slavery of the small, controlling power over the general public. And when those powers exist in a capitalist society, the desire to obtain more. Capitalism breeds excess.
I love capitalism. It has given more opportunity to more people than in any other system. But it is not perfect. There must be balances to this. These balances must occur in the needs of men. We must balance out capitalism with the knowledge that history has given us - the needs of men are not for sale. They must be available to all people. Food, Water, and yes, Health care. These are basic rights. The denial of these rights by the people who control them have led to revolution after revolution... some violent and some more of an evolution than a revolution.
It is reasonable to assume that health care is a need and a right. It is reasonable to assume that it is affordable, and well within our collective means. We have survived as a species by working collectively. It isn't altruism.. it was necessary for survival. Looking out for your neighbor means that he will look out for you... and if he doesn't, the guy on the other side will. Provided you're not a complete douche (which is the point of why it's not altruism to look out for your neighbor, but is actually done in self-interest).
Reason and observation will also show you why it's a good idea to have a healthy "herd".
Socialistbetty's reply to my commentary exposes the fundamental philosophical choice America faces...collectivism or individualism. Due to the importance of this conflict to America's future, and with space being limited here, I have written a detailed response and posted it to my blog at:
http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/01/rebutting-socialistbetty-point-by-point.html
But let me make these points.
Socialistbetty distorts the meaning of that glorious phrase; all men are created equal. The equality of all men (and women) refers to the unalienable rights of each individual to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of his own welfare and happiness. Those rights are possessed equally, at all times, by all people, under all circumstances, protected equally by government; they can be forfeited only by violating the same rights of another. These rights are not a guarantee of the material success of any individual, only the right to take the actions that one deems necessary to achieve material success through one's own productive efforts and in voluntary association and trade with others. The equality of all men under the law is the essence of capitalism.
Since all rights are unalienable, the violation of the rights of one single person necessarily negates the same rights of everyone else, including each and every individual member of any group such as the "collective", the "herd", the "masses" and "society". And if no one possesses rights, then the state is all-powerful. This is the totalitarian premise, the ultimate logical consequence of which is Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. If this is the ideal Socialistbetty is going to embrace, then she should have the courage to openly admit it, rather than claim the lie that "the masses" can benefit under a slave state.
At least, though, I give her credit for acknowledging that "universal healthcare" is slavery. No other advocate of socialized medicine that I know of has ever admitted the obvious fact that they are calling for "the enslavement of a small group"...the doctors (among others).
The view of man the individual (my view) as the standard of value with regard to social organization is an historically recent discovery that is consistent with the metaphysical facts of nature and, thus, leads logically to capitalistic freedom. The collectivist premise (her view) is a primitive, mystical doctrine that dismisses actual, individual human beings as valueless, sacrificial fodder for the "needs" of some "higher power". Modern collectivism merely replaces a supernatural God as that power with some group called the "proletariat", "society", "the masses", the "master race", etc., to which the individual is subordinate, and which leads logically to totalitarianism.
Reason and observation will show you why it's a good idea to have a healthy society of free individuals, not a collectivized slave state.
First of all, what you - Mike Zermack - are doing is taking my words and distorting them by putting them in sentences I never had them in. So it's interesting that you should I am distorting things (and am wrong for doing it, even though I'm not) when you appear to be a master at that.
What's that called? Hypocrisy? Hmmm.
Second of all, how can I distort the glorious phrase when I have made no mention of it? What Mike Zermack is doing is firstly putting words into my mouth (or... keyboard? We'll have to invent a new term for that, I think) and the informing himself that I am wrong about something I have never said.
Mike Zermack is further assuming that it is lack of material success that leads to a person's illness, poor health, apendicitis, pneumonia, or any other such thing. Mike Zermack further leads us to believe that a person's health is not his welfare. He further ignores the part of that "glorious" document that gives us the words (which I have not mentioned, at any point until now) "all men are created equal" that ensures our government shall "promote the general welfare".
Mike Zermack fails to grasp is that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" does not promote individual rights, it promotes the rights of ALL the people... for to promote only individual rights acknowledges that we are not created equal. To do so would be to go against the very nature of those words. This doesn't mean that there are no rights OF the individual, but that promotion of the rights of all people is equal. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" requires that we work COLLECTIVELY. TOGETHER. Synonymous for what? United? Hmm. Eeenteresting. Ze Germans would have agreed (but since most of the ruling families have had connections to Nazi-ism, it's not surprising). Further more, by allowing the "free market" - which everyone agrees does not work the way it should (for the same reason, incidentally, that communism can never work... greed and corruption) - to provide and promote (in a half-assed, greedy and corrupt manner) the general welfare instead of the government (which Is the people) and the health of ALL people suffer. For the right of this is then limited to those who Have achieved excess in their pursuit of material success. Again, as though lack of material success means that one just doesn't have accidents happen, or emergencies occur. As though people who are poor don't work hard. Because THAT's not a fallacy.
Now thank you, Mike Germack, for not only attributing to me things I did not say, but also taking things I did say completely out of context so badly as to make you a LIAR, and a delusional one at that. You know exactly what I meant... but kudos again for being an ass about it. Universalised health care doesn't mean doctors will be not be paid, or be paid less... it means that anyone who needs to see a doctor can. So doctors will not be enslaved.
As it stands, the wealth of this country rests in the hands of the very few, who exert their control to keep it a very small group. THAT is what I meant, and you know it. You also know I'm correct... but to do so would be to acknowledge to you small mind that perhaps the system we've been operating under doesn't work so hot.
Further more, don't be such a presumptuous ass as to make assumptions about MY view because I don't think Socialism is a dirty word...but is in fact a necessary component to a capitalistic society to balance out the inescapable fact that capitalism denies the rights of the individuals because it promotes power above individual rights; because capitalism simply abuses human rights WHENEVER it can get away with it. Because it is NOT perfectly functioning.
Or maybe you missed the part of that post where I said I liked - for the most part - capitalism? Not surprising since you seem to be delusional to the point of thinking I've said anything about equality and that "glorious" nicety of all men being equal.
The only way we can ever move forward and progress towards the more perfect union is to take parts of many different disciplines and combine them. Capitalism alone does not work. Socialism alone does not work. Communism alone does not work (although I think this is mostly due to size.. the size of the "community" is what prohibits the proper functioning). Relying on one system alone is the surest way to a dead civilization.
First of all, capitalism and socialism are complete opposites and you cannot have both. They are opposite concepts of societal economic policies. Therefore, since you obviously lean toward socialism in your opinions, the fact that you say you love capitalism is completely hypocritical. The reason capitalism works better than any other economic policy is because it benefits more from greed than any other. Greed causes people to work hard and earn their share in a capitalist society which benefits because products are made and services are provided to earn that money people greedily strive for. Socialism enslaves greedy people because they do not have the freedom to keep what they earn and therefore they detest society. They begin to lose motivation because they cannot keep what they earn and therefore, why work hard? There is no point. It is easier to do nothing and mooch off the system because that's what other people get to do. Greed is natural and capitalism suits it.
Next, as an outsider of this conversation, I do not believe Mike made any huge distortions on what you said. Perhaps you did not say what you meant but he replied objectively and directly to what you posted. My suggestion would be to try to clarify what you mean instead of getting insulted by a direct response to what you said.
As for your apparent belief that the wealthy people of this country try to hold on to their wealth, ("As it stands, the wealth of this country rests in the hands of the very few, who exert their control to keep it a very small group.") this is absolutely not true. Take a look at some statistics on donations and you'll notice that the wealthiest are the most charitable by far. Also, the wealthiest provide the most jobs , consume the most goods, buy the most cars , and pay far more than their share of taxes . Yes, this is because they have more money, but don't you want your employer to have more money than you so they can afford to pay you? Personally, I want my employer to be the richest man in the country so he can pay me the highest salary in the country...
Last point I want to make is that seeking health care is indeed a right. Having it is a right if you provide it to yourself. Making someone else pay someone else to provide you health care is not a right. The right to life means nobody else can murder you. It does not mean someone else must take care of you. People die every day and as long as people are being born every day, that will continue.
What matters is that everyone has the freedom to seek a better quality of life. Each individual can choose their own path to pursue happiness because nobody's path is the same. If you treat individuals as a group, that is assuming that they are not just equal but THE SAME. I strive to be better than my neighbors because I am greedy/motivated/whateveryouwanttocallit. My motivation makes me better and makes me work harder. In working harder, I contribute more to society while I get more out of it. It's a win-win because I do better and society does better. THAT is the essence of capitalism.
By the way... in striving to be better than your neighbors... what does that actually mean?
That you can buy more things? That you work harder to buy more stuff?
Do you need a plasma flat screen whatever? Does it make you better to have it? Do you need a 12 man hottub? Does THIS make you better? What about a bigger boat? Does That make you better? A bigger car? A more expensive bike?
Are you confusing material possessions with what makes a person better?
I didn't buy a new car this year. Guess what I did? I actually spent time with my family. Wow. On vacation. Where we ate at restaurants, bought crappy t-shirts, over-paid for silly drawings from local artists, and tipped generously. I didn't buy a flat screen from Best-Buy where the guy who might've sold it to me is barely making it (but hey... those rich guys pay the highest salaries... or... don't they?), but I bought season tickets. And everytime I go I'll be spending money where it stays local and more people benefit from it.
Does This make Me a better person? No. It just means the money I spend is a bit more spread out and more people benefit from it.
You're not a better person because you can buy more things than another person...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328273572673730.html
"But you gladly give your money up for roads you do not travel on, water you do not drink, garbage that isn't yours, libraries you will never enter, etcetera etcetera etcetera. You gladly pay for the health care of senators that don't give a crap about you, and millions of other federal employees that don't do a damn thing for you. " NO I DON'T!!!! I grudgingly oblige to pay my taxes every year because if I don't I go to jail. And then of course you continued to insult me based on these false assumptions... thanks.
"you don't like the United States of America and the ideals it was founded upon... again... ignoring the fact that it was basically a group of rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes. We've ignored that fact since we could print text books and lie about it, why stop now?" I have never deluded myself into thinking that anyone except white tax hating men founded this country. I completely agree with them 100%. Even after all the checks and balances they built into the system, it still managed to get out of control because people love power over others. I don't want power over others and I don't want others to have power over me. Unfortunately, they do. I am afraid to speed, I am afraid to not pay taxes, I am afraid to do things that I should be allowed to do because they cause no harm to anyone else. I am afraid to buy marijuana and sell alcohol to 20 year olds. Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in having laws and upholding them. I just wish there was a limit on what laws can be created.
"But if all you end up being (profession-wise) is a janitor, you deserve to not lose the home you worked just as hard as I did for mine (and Bill Gates for his)" I'm sorry, I firmly believe that Bill Gates worked his ass off to get where he is. I'm currently working my ass off to get where I want to be and the only way I would be a janitor is if I gave up and stopped trying. People get where they want in life by putting in as much work as they're willing to put in. If someone is a janitor, it's because he wasn't willing to work hard enough to get to carpenter.
"Are you confusing material possessions with what makes a person better?" I'll let you decide.
I want to earn enough money to send my kids to college . I want to have enough money to go on vacations and spend time with my future family. I want to earn enough to buy the best health insurance . I want enough to provide a comfortable home and nutritional food . I want to earn enough to take time off work to teach them morals and educate them on how to be a better person to themselves and to others. I want enough money to afford to donate to organizations I think are worthy and not corrupt. I want to earn enough money to buy my kids gymnastics lessons or hockey lessons or whatever they want to do. I want to earn enough money that I don't have to keep struggling to find a better job... I want to be a college professor someday and help students achieve their dreams. If that doesn't pay enough, I will strive to be a research director for a biomedical technology company to design and test biomedical devices to increase the quality of life for many people. And I want to buy a very nice computer monitor so my research is easier and more enjoyable. By the way, I am a girl, why does everyone mistake me for a man?
"Does This make Me a better person?" Yes. Compared only to yourself if you were more lazy and greedy. I don't compare people to other people, I compare them to what they could be. A murderer could have been a better person.
And now, off to try to find that link...
SocialistBetty, you are a hypocrite in every aspect of the term. I sought a debate and you responded with assumptions and unnecessary insults. I hope you're proud.
"Since you actually quoted me, it's funny that you didn't really grasp what I was saying. Wealth and power are kept in the smallest number of hands possible." I understood exactly what you meant. You think the wealthiest people in the country are the greediest people in the country. I don't have time right now to go find the statistics that I've mentioned but maybe later I will get around to posting the link.
"We created this country to protect the individuals... all of them.... from greed and corruption whenever possible." We created this country to protect individual freedoms. Each person in this country is free. That means they may keep what they earn and do what they want as long as it does not impinge on another's freedom. We did not do a very good job protecting from corruption because the government is full of it. Accepting bribes, swaying voters by lying to them, creating laws for unions ... all corruption and out of control. As for companies, very large ones may become corrupt obviously but without business we have no economy . In general, most businesses supply a good or service without corruption in exchange for money. "We have no duty to protect the interest of private companies." Yes we do because private companies supply jobs . Jobs mean income for individuals. Without private companies, everyone goes bankrupt.
"As society has gotten larger, why do you expect government to stay the same size?" I don't. I expect it to grow in proportion to the population to serve and protect. I do not expect it to grow faster than our population and spend billions of our dollars to "stimulate" us.
"The government provides FOR the people. People. You apparently do not like this." What I don't like about this is that you say "provides". I prefer "protects and serves". The government does not and should not feed us like mice in a cage. They should also not trim our nails and give us " health care " like house cats. We are not animals because we can take care of ourselves (I can anyway).
"If you're going to sit there and say that you think a child does not deserve health care because his parents work at Burger King and Walmart, you are disgustingly wrong." That's your opinion. In my opinion, everyone has the freedom to work and earn more money. It is not my fault they work for minimum wage or my responsibility to pay for other people. I never anywhere said that people are not equal. Everyone is CREATED equal. What they make of themselves (because luckily we have the freedom of choice) is up to them. As it is up to me what I do with my life and it is up to you what you do with yours. A murderer is not equal to a doctor in my opinion because they chose different paths. They cannot be treated the same because society benefits more from the doctor's life than the murderer's.
Free market economy is fair and just. Here's an article to help explain my point.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-free-market-is-not-another-form-of-rationing /
"What a person does is not the question." Yes it is. If a person chooses to contribute to society, they receive money in return. If a person chooses to be lazy and do nothing for anyone else, they don't get money. Another article, this one written by me.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Money---Examining-the-Concept
"The people you are saying don't deserve to not go into bankruptcy and lose their homes are the people you depend on. " Yes, they are. And strangely enough, I would pay them for their service... Except at the moment I can't afford to purchase their services. I would if I had a job at one of the big corporations you so despise.... but for now I guess they're unemployed because so am I. (I'm exaggerating a little, I am still in Grad School, so that's why I'm broke)
Really? we can't have both?
Do you know where you live? Are you aware that capitalism and socialism exist together in not only this country, but in a huge portion of the world?
"As for your apparent belief that the wealthy people of this country try to hold on to their wealth, ("As it stands, the wealth of this country rests in the hands of the very few, who exert their control to keep it a very small group.") this is absolutely not true. Take a look at some statistics on donations and you'll notice that the wealthiest are the most charitable by far...........blah blah.... Personally, I want my employer to be the richest man in the country so he can pay me the highest salary in the country..."
Since you actually quoted me, it's funny that you didn't really grasp what I was saying. Wealth and power are kept in the smallest number of hands possible. Also, you pay more in taxes than most billionaires. Think it's not true? They will end up paying less percentage wise than their secretaries... and they'll even admit it. Nor does being the biggest player mean you pay your employees the highest salary. Or am I wrong and minimum wage does not exist?
But really... the point of this is is that you think you're better than everyone else. You're not. You may be better AT things... you may very well be a great lawyer. You could be the best damn midget wrestler the world has ever seen. You may be the shiznit at small engine repair.
You're missing the point.
This country does not say "by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations". We have no duty to protect the interest of private companies. We created this country to protect the individuals... all of them.... from greed and corruption whenever possible. True conservatism does not hate government. True conservatism recognizes that there is a need for government. As society has gotten larger, why do you expect government to stay the same size? As more changes in the world, why do you not expect the government to change , as well? The government provides FOR the people. People. You apparently do not like this. If you don't like this idea, you don't like the United States of America and the ideals it was founded upon... again... ignoring the fact that it was basically a group of rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes. We've ignored that fact since we could print text books and lie about it, why stop now?.... well... move to China. That's where everything's made anyway.
If you're going to sit there and say that you think a child does not deserve health care because his parents work at Burger King and Walmart, you are disgustingly wrong. If you are going to say that the parent who works at Burger King and Walmart doesn't derserve to be treated for illness, you are wrong. You are saying that they are not the human equals of the woman who processes paper work at your district court. You are saying they are not the human equals of yourself. You are no less or more of a person for wanting to keep your money . But you gladly give your money up for roads you do not travel on, water you do not drink, garbage that isn't yours, libraries you will never enter, etcetera etcetera etcetera. You gladly pay for the health care of senators that don't give a crap about you, and millions of other federal employees that don't do a damn thing for you. Why then do you seem to have such a huge problem with providing for the general welfare of the citizens of this country? You apparently have no problems unless it involves the words "health care". Then you go "Hey... w-w-w-wuh wuh WAIT a minute!!!! That's socialism! We're not a socialist country!!!" And then you drive on roads, drink from municipal taps, etc. etc. etc. I think that's just slightly misguided (okay, very... ).
What a person does is not the question. We can't all be actors. We can't all be librarians, or doctors , or the guys who change the oil in your car. Fortunately, we can't all be fast food workers . We're not all going to be ambulance drivers. Society functions with all its parts. The people you are saying don't deserve to not go into bankruptcy and lose their homes are the people you depend on. These are the people you are saying "F*** you. You don't deserve anything." They place your calls. They monitor your streets. They clean your toilets. They serve you lunch. They guard you while you sleep. And you are trying to say that they are not the human equivalent of you? Or the entire 111th Congress? Or me?
You are not better than anyone else. You are another human. Whatever it is you choose to do in life.... do it well. But if all you end up being (profession-wise) is a janitor, you deserve to not lose the home you worked just as hard as I did for mine (and Bill Gates for his), because your wife fell ill. Or because you contracted the Swine Flu. Or the like.
The article from the National Physicians Alliance sent chills down my spine. Universal healthcare is a horrifying concept and one need only look to Canada for proof. I am located in Detroit and Canada is only a mile across the river. I have numerous family members living in Windsor who regulary drive across to have routine care provided in Michigan. Something like an MRI, that we take for granted here, can take weeks to get in Canada. Canada is a country of about 40 million people. How in the world will it work in this country? Is the Physicians Alliance expecting me to believe the government is going to take care of my healthcare? The reason healthcare is so expensive is because of government interference in the market.
Why is it moral to demand I pay for healthcare for another individual at the point of a gun. It's a typical Marxist ploy to say we need to help the poor. What it really means is give the elitist control of everything and we'll make it better for all. What happens is, we all become equally poor. The elitist live like kings and queens while the great unwashed masses bend down and kiss their feet. I know one thing,
government bureacrats won't be using the same medical faclities the rest of are forced to pay for. Why don't we just demand doctors work for free? How about demanding drug companies share their discovories for free, that way the cost of drugs would come way down? Those hip implants are way too expensive also, they should be free to all who need them. Once all healthcare is free, we only need to figure out who gets it. I have and idea, we can form a agency to oversee who is using the free care properly and who is abusing it. That way we can vote for the person most likely to redistribute healthcare the way it should be used. Oh wait , we're making that choice next Tuesday. Maybe this argument will be moot.
As usual you socialists dodge the need to justify that healthcare is a right, or prove that it's the moral thing to do. Let's hear it. Here, I'll get you started... "You are your brother's keeper...."
That's the only justification ever offered for socialism, and it's still not an argument. Why am I my brother's keeper? For one that's insulting to my brother; for another it means my enslavement.
We are not born in to servitude, we are born as unique individuals, each with our own lives, our own minds, and our own goals. The essence of morality is for us to use our minds to support our lives, to make our own judgments, to produce the values that our lives require. It is not to force others to serve our needs. A moral government is one that leaves people free to use their minds and act on their own judgment. This is still America, not the Soviet Union.
"Universal healthcare" really means universal enslavement, everybody is forced to provide for the needs of everyone else. It's mass enslavement and as far from moral as you can get. And because its immoral it is impractical, as any attempt at socialized medicine around the globe has shown.
If you want to concretize what socialized medicine would be like imagine the intellectually demanding, and technologically advanced field of medicine run by the geniuses that run the post office, or the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, or our dismal school system. There will be waiting lines, there will be rationing, there will be monumental incompetence and arrogant bureaucracy. Do you want to put your life in their hands? Well you have the right to subject yourself to that, but leave the rest of us responsible adults out of it.
You're absolutely correct. You exist solely on your own and in no way do you owe anything - not one single thing - to any other human being. You are an island. You have your own mind, your own goals, and your own life that exists in a bubble.
In no way is it ever possible that man survived by being a social animal... and in no way is society derived out of being social towards one another. That would have been mass enslavement, and no one would have ever done it... because no one man ever needs another to survive. There's no such thing as society and *if there was* it would only exist as a slave market. The essence of morality is to be purely selfish - which means that no one else on the entire earth matters except yourself; that is exactly what it means to always act in self-interest. The values that man requires is not contingent upon another human being in any way, shape, or form. Society is evil, as is socialism, as is anything that forces any one man to have to interact with others. Because you are correct, Nigel - you're an island with your own mind, your own goals, and your own life.
And might I point out that one of the arguments that is used against Universal Health is that there are currently waiting lines, rationing, and monumental incompetence and arrogant bureaucracy (glad you spelled that correctly, first).
"You're absolutely correct. You exist solely on your own and in no way do you owe anything - not one single thing - to any other human being. You are an island. You have your own mind, your own goals, and your own life that exists in a bubble."
Sure sounds like paradise to me. I don't owe anyone anything and no one owes anything to me.
"In no way is it ever possible that man survived by being a social animal..."
Oh, it's perfectly possible but this doesn't mean people persistently robbed each other when they were "needy."
"...and in no way is society derived out of being social towards one another."
In a financial sense, no. Society is derived out of the voluntary exchange of consenting individuals.
"That would have been mass enslavement, and no one would have ever done it... because no one man ever needs another to survive."
I'm sure they do, but this doesn't mean I automatically owe to IRS money because someone else got in a car wreck, or got pregnant.
"There's no such thing as society and *if there was* it would only exist as a slave market."
Does this have any relevance to what Nigel said?
"The essence of morality is to be purely selfish"
Definitely not. Pure selfishness is exactly what you'll get when people feel they are entitled to free stuff at someone else's expense.
"which means that no one else on the entire earth matters except yourself; that is exactly what it means to always act in self-interest."
Other people matter too, as long as they pull their own weight and don't force people to do things they don't want to.
"The values that man requires is not contingent upon another human being in any way, shape, or form."
It sure is contingent upon others, don't take from me, and I won't take from you is one such example.
"Society is evil, as is socialism, as is anything that forces any one man to have to interact with others."
Newsflash: People don't need to be taxed out of their minds in order for them to interact with each other. Pretty sure the market's success depends upon human interaction anyway.
"Because you are correct, Nigel - you're an island with your own mind, your own goals, and your own life."
I wish that was the case for me. :(
"And might I point out that one of the arguments that is used against Universal Health is that there are currently waiting lines, rationing, and monumental incompetence and arrogant bureaucracy (glad you spelled that correctly, first)."
Boy, where to start with that one....
http://willtoexist.com/universal-health-care_1202 /
That was easy. I'm glad you agree Betty. Maybe you should think about changing your username? ;)
I do not say that I exist on my own, or that society is evil, those are your words, nor do I claim that I don't benefit from cooperating with others in society, so all your sarcasm against those positions is misdirected. My position is simply that all individuals should be free from coercion, that all social interactions should be voluntary not coerced. (A society that is coercive, e.g. socialist, islamofascist, etc., is evil.) So of course there are enormous benefits to living in a society, but only if it is essentially free. That's why people selfishly flee Cuba and come to the United States.
Tellingly, under a fully capitalist system you could have your own micro socialist system, e.g. a collectivized farm (kibbutz) or a socialist healthcare system; but under a fully socialist system a micro free market system would never be tolerated. The reason is that under capitalism the individual is sovereign, and so can be a capitalist or a communist or whatever, the state is only there to protect his freedom. Under socialism there are no individuals, only meaningless cogs whose obligation is to serve the collective as prescribed by the omnipotent state.
Let's think about this one. Under the system that we currently have, the people decide what is best. Collectively. Apparently, 56% of voters here desire universal health care. This is a huge issue nationwide.
The state that we elect exists to serve the needs and desires of the people... not to promote capitalism. And, if capitalism didn't interfere with government as much as government does capitalism, it would have happened long ago.
"Let's think about this one. Under the system that we currently have, the people decide what is best. Collectively. Apparently, 56% of voters here desire universal health care. This is a huge issue nationwide."
If a majority believes in an unfounded idea, it's still an unfounded idea.
"The state that we elect exists to serve the needs and desires of the people... not to promote capitalism."
Hence why many want to minimize it altogether.
"And, if capitalism didn't interfere with government as much as government does capitalism, it would have happened long ago."
How the hell does capitalism interfere with government more than vise-versa?
Are you freaking kidding me?
"Hey, let me just buy a politician." is a thought that never occurred and never happened to extremely rich and powerful men (and surely, by now, women) in privately owned industries who wanted to pass or block legislation that benefitted them, but not within the constructs of government.
Half the crap that government did or does is because of influence from business! or the banks! Christ on a stick, government was SOLD a very long time ago.
So the trade Unions have no say in government. NO say?
"Are you freaking kidding me?"
Did I sound like I was? I'm sorry if that was the case.
""Hey, let me just buy a politician." is a thought that never occurred and never happened to extremely rich and powerful men (and surely, by now, women) in privately owned industries who wanted to pass or block legislation that benefitted them, but not within the constructs of government."
Oh yes, that most definitely is a prospect for many business people. Insist the govt. needs to enforce certain regulations which just so happen to be regulatory measures that kill off their competitors. I'm more that willing to believe in that.
"Half the crap that government did or does is because of influence from business! or the banks!"
So you also hold the view that the most powerful weapon corrupt corporations have is government regulation, bailouts, etc. At least we can agree on something.
"Christ on a stick, government was SOLD a very long time ago."
Think maybe we should reduce the size and scope of government to minimize that problem?
Baby.... I want to scrap everything but the constitution.
And set up some new way of electing people so it's not only millionaires who can run for office.
"Baby.... I want to scrap everything but the constitution ."
That's a very great document indeed, I only wish (as you probably do as well) that we could start electing people who would uphold it.
"And set up some new way of electing people so it's not only millionaires who can run for office."
We could start by eliminating McCain's campaign finance reform:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/09/lamonts-victory-exposes-the-true-nature-of-campaign-finance-reform /
You know what's funny, don't you? Democracy kind of denies the individual.....
"You know what's funny, don't you? Democracy kind of denies the individual....."
See the above question.
I told you I've been Nietzsche-ized.... because it seeks the Last Man. It strives to either raise up or lower all to one level of " equality ." It uses the means of one or few standard(s) to fit EVERYONE instead of creating and enabling the individual and the qualities that create and define individualism. (I don't even really like Nietzsche but these I can't stop!! He's fucking my head up!)
Now, in the case of univeral health -care... I think this is one instance where more government is better, and covering all is a universal fit because under medical care, the individual is treated. Why do I support U.H.C. ? Because freedom is dependent upon it.
If someone is too sick too work and goes to the hospital and his health returns... how then, shall he pay for not only his mounting bills to the responsibilities he had previously undertaken, but then also to the hospital? If he owes $10,000 (and you know as well as I that this can occur with one single visit), this in't like the person who wants $10,000 for a vacation. There is no reason why the state should pay for a vacation. But when the livlihood and freedom of a man are at stake... the state has a duty to provide for the general welfare of those who pay to keep the state. Note: this support of freedom should be provided for citizens only!
The question isn't why to me.... but how?
I'm lost as to what you're trying to say in that first paragraph, but here's where your comment started to make sense:
"Now, in the case of univeral health -care... I think this is one instance where more government is better, and covering all is a universal fit because under medical care, the individual is treated."
Kind of the same thing with private care, except you have to work for it and you cannot depend on money taken from other people's income.
"Why do I support U.H.C. ? Because freedom is dependent upon it."
I wouldn't call a system that enslaves people to serve others without anything in their return a system that freedom depends on.
"If someone is too sick too work and goes to the hospital and his health returns... how then, shall he pay for not only his mounting bills to the responsibilities he had previously undertaken, but then also to the hospital?"
Pretty sure if his health returns he can go back to work and pay off the bills later.
I agree the state should not pay for vacations either, but....
"But when the livlihood and freedom of a man are at stake... the state has a duty to provide for the general welfare of those who pay to keep the state."
Not when this is at the freedom and expense of others. All you've done is created a bigger problem.
the freedom and expense of others?
where do our roads come from? our water? our rivers are kept clean and stocked at the freedom and expense of ALL of us.
i see you as focusing too much on the individual and scared of those who focus so intensely upon the herd of ALL individuals. that -- to me -- is a problem that's fairly common. we already by the mere fact that we have public works: roads, water, etc... even our rivers and streams and fish are provided for at the freedom and expense of others. libraries. parks. tons of things. these are provided for at the "expense" of the freedom of others. these don't create bigger problems. this is how the problems of well maintained roads, clean water, responsive actions to invasive species, etc are treated.
we, collectively, spend more per person on health care than a majority of nations that DO have nationalised... whatever... health care. and yet we do not have a nationalised health care system. we abandon our citizens to the mercy and greed of overreaching hmo's and pharmaceutical companies. we, collectively, do not recognize the individual when we do this.
only by recognizing that this is a "problem" of society - that a man must go into severe debt to combat sickness (and thus be less productive and contribute less to his own life and the lives of others) - and treating it as a societal problem do we come to embrace the individual.
we pay to keep a state. the state is supposed to work FOR us... not for corporations. yet it is this imbalance which has prevented nationlised healthcare from being an actuality in this country. if not for the interference of private corporations who place more importance upon the almighty dollar than actual health care - it would have happened long ago.
"where do our roads come from? our water ? our rivers are kept clean and stocked at the freedom and expense of ALL of us."
I'm guessing that the gist of your argument is that there are plenty of other public goods in existence that have apparent benefits , and since those already come at other peoples expense, then why not take those platforms further in the form of Universal Healthcare.
The fact is (with the two examples you cite) both of those could just as easily be provided privately, and doing such seems to offer better results:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/gridlock
It's also worth noting that thousands of miles of 19th century highway was build by turnpike companies.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916 /
http://lsb.scu.edu /~dklein/papers/privateTollRds.html
As for water one need not look further than the bottled water industry (not that I think bottled water is always worth it) or the business of filtering it to see how water can be provided only at the expense of those who want it.
Now when it comes to keeping rivers clean and stocked, a good example of market alternatives to keeping them safe would be found in the UK:
http://www.ruwart.com/environ2.lpn .wpd.html
"we, collectively, spend more per person on health care than a majority of nations that DO have nationalised... whatever... health care."
They SPEND less, they don't COST less:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/single-payer-systems-do-not-cost-less-than-the-us-health-care-system
Waste is only eliminated when an economic incentive exists to do so.
"we abandon our citizens to the mercy and greed of overreaching hmo's and pharmaceutical companies."
HMO's were propped up by government ...
http://www.cchconline.org/issues/hmorise.php3
...so you may as well blame the legislators who had "good intentions" and not corporate greed. Now when it comes to the cost of drugs ...
http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml
(the article does mention how the cost of drugs is affected negatively by the FDA)
...they would be much cheaper if the market had it's full role in their production and if people didn't rely on third party government institutions to pay for them. No reason to bargain for lower prices when it isn't your money you're spending.
"we pay to keep a state. the state is supposed to work FOR us... not for corporations."
Hate to break it to you, but corporations are the ones who try and gain control of the government for their own benefit.
"yet it is this imbalance which has prevented nationlised healthcare from being an actuality in this country. if not for the interference of private corporations who place more importance upon the almighty dollar than actual health care - it would have happened long ago."
I think the history of HMO's that I linked to above is enough to show that this is not the case.
....See the below post: "Reason and Observation be Damned!" said Ayn Rand?
but just know that I acknowledge it's full of missing words. I blame near-turkey comatose. But I think you can kind of figure out what words I accidentally didn't type... you're smart like that. I think.