Kindness Deficit

[DavidS]

And I think in general doctors and nurses are underpaid and overworked.

Yet we pay pro athletes 10's or even 100's of millions of dollars to entertain us.

Like I always said - footballers and members of bus cooperatives make more than engineers...

[Shapley]

My goodness - what excitement about the point of a National Health system!!!
Both in the UK and Israel (and I believe in NZ and many other countries) it is considered a basic social provision - like education, security, etc. etc. etc. - that the government has to ensure for the entire population.

Under the American system, that is within the realm of the State governments to provide, not the Federal. The Constitution is very clear on what the government can, and can't do.

Selma, 'Promote' is not the same thing as 'provide'. We promote the general welfare through regulation and oversight, not through provision of services. I have argued in the past (sorry, OT, I'm not going to search for the exact post, this thread isn't the only place we've had this discussion) that there are several places where we violate the Constitutional limitations on governmental powers, and that we have to live with those violations in the name of 'compassion', 'security', or whatever. Libertarians seek to roll that back, most of us aren't willing to go that far, but we are seeking to draw the line so that we don't wind up chucking the entire concept behind our system of government on the basis that we're entitled to access the pockets of everyone.

Yes, OT, that is a basic Constitutional premise - you or I or anyone else are not entitled to someone elses property - their money, their labour, or their livelihood.

V/R
Shapley

[DavidS]

I would go back even further: "No taxation without representation!"

[Shapley]

Well, yes, except that 'no taxation withoug representation' means that the people could - through their representatives - vote to raise taxes to pay for such a system. The Constitution imposed limits on what the Federal Government can do - limits which have been violated many times (usually with good intentions, I might add), in order to prevent the people from voting themselves access to others peoples pocketbooks.

The usual way around this is for the Federal Government to enact a program to be administered by the States, but 'paid for with Federal funds'. i.e., the Federal government taxes us and then gives the money to the States to run the program (and also tells the States how they have to run the program). Of course, the States always complain that the Federal government doesn't give them enough to administer it, so they lobby for more money - which always comes with more strings attached. In addition to all this, the Federal government sets a seperate beaurocracy to control the division of funding among the various States, as well as a regulatory agency to ensure that the States are complying with Federal mandates on how the 'Federal' monies are being used. Keep in mind that, once the government decides to emplement the plan, all States have to operate it, whether they think it is good for their State or not, which tramples all over the concept of States' rights - a concept our government hasn't really believed in for decades.

As for the cost savings of switching to a single-player plan: I've already mentioned that we Americans are addicted to high-cost remedial treatment instead of preventative medicine, and we're addicted to prescription drugs as an alternative to healthy lifestyle choices. If we have digestive problems we would much rather just take a little pill two or three times a day than simply changing to healthier eating habits. Never mind that the pill may produce undesirable side-effects, there's surely another pill to treat those. By the time we reach our '70s, we're taking six or seven little pills a day, two of which treat an affliction and the rest to treat the side-effects of the first two. A simple lifestyle change earlier in life could probably have prevented the need for the first two.

Europeans, by and large, lead healthier lifes than we do. I went on a cruise last year. There was a health spa on board and it was full - of Europeans. The Americans were too busy feasting the buffets which seem to run 24/7 on board. We've tried to remedy this to some extent - by exporting our unhealthy eating facilities to European countries. You can now find a McDonald's in just about any country in world. But it didn't quite work out like we wanted. Instead of luring the Europeans into our unhealthy eating habits, they wound up changing the menu to reflect the diets of the locals. The Big Mac is still available - usually enjoyed by the Americans who travel half-way around the world so they can stay in a Holiday Inn and eat McDonald's food as they pretend they are enjoying the local flavour of a foreign country.

Unless and until we change our habits - our health care will only get more expensive. The inflation rate will probably accelerate, in fact, since money is no object - if it's not your money.

V/R
Shapley

[DavidS]

Shap - I hear what you say about healthier lifestyles (and don't imagine that only Americans are culpable in that respect), but until that happens, don't the sick (even due to their own actions and omissions) deserve proper treatment?

[Shapley]

David,

We have no shortage of health care in America. But it costs money to those that have money. We provide it at reduced or zero cost to the old and to the indigent. Some States even provide at low or reduced cost to all children. For the rest of us, it is available at a cost.

There are free clinics and other facilities that make health care available to the non-indigent poor, but they exist primarily in larger cities and in poverty-stricken rural areas.

I've always found it interesting that people will pay good money for the things that make them ill (cigarettes, high-fat foods, alcohol, drugs, etc.) but think that it should be someone elses responsibility to pay the cost to make them well again. Picking up the bill for irresponsible behavior does nothing to discourage irresponsible behavior.

When I was in the Navy, the military imposed a restriction (I'm not sure if it's still in place) that stated that they were liable for the costs of medical care for injuries auto injuries that occur if the servicemember was in violation of certain regulations - failing to wear a seat belt, failing to wear a motorcycle helmet, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of drugs, etc. They didn't refuse treatment, but they would bill the servicemember for the costs of their care. In addition, for drug and alcohol related injuries, the servicemember would be processed for discharge from service - meaning that they found themselves incapacitated, jobless, and in debt as a result of their folly. Does it represent a lack of compassion? Hardly any more than the servicemember showed to his fellow servicemembers when he engaged in the actions that left deprived of a teammate. Again, they weren't denied service, but they were denied payment of that service.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

OT,

My argument has never been about the financial impact - it's about the Constitutionality.

The States have the power to enact such systems, the Federal government does not - nor should it.

Our system is founded on freedom - and socialized medicine is contrary to that foundation. In the American system anyone can establish a national health plan that allows everyone to join and which covers every person in the plan - anyone but the government, that is. The problem is the plan doesn't work unless we can force people into the plan who know they will pay in much, much more than they will receive in benefits - in order to provide for those who will recieve much, much more in benefits than they will pay into the plan.

I've never said our system is perfect, but I have said it is Constitutional, and it can be fixed without sacrificing the freedom so many of us hold so dear.

V/R
Shapley

We really need a smilie for wiggling.



If you truly believe that, then why do you partake of the benefits of Medicaid? Or are you okay with you reaching into my pocket?

[Shapley]

If you truly believe that, then why do you partake of the benefits of Medicaid? Or are you okay with you reaching into my pocket?

Okay, end of discussion for me. This post is so typical of the hypocracy of the left. The system is supposed to exist to take care of people like my stepson who, by law, is a ward of the State under our care. Yet, by taking advantage of the programs offering, you will argue that I am unqaulified to oppose any expansion of those services. This is nothing but a cheap shot on your part aimed at avoiding an open an honest discussion of the issues.

I will not further discuss his financial situation, nor mine, in an open forum for the sake of satisfying your, nor anyone else's, political argument.

Good Day.

[DavidS]

Right, the temperature here has gone up a bit, but I will say that I have gained something from the analysis of various aspects of this issue.
I see the point of making a person bear the financial cost of his own folly and not take it as an inalienable right to dip into others' pockets.
I also see the importance of investing in education against drug abuse, unhealthy eating and drinking habits, unprotected casual sex, etc. etc.
Recognising that some of these practices are social norms, while others are gradually becoming (or have become) unacceptable by the majority of the population, where do we draw the line between our preparedness to cooperate in footing the bill for the consequences, and when the individual is compelled to pick up the tab?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I have also done a stint in the military. And it is indeed the case that catching certain diseases as a demonstrable result of disobeying standing orders leads to a court-martial.

[OperaTenor]

No Shap, you take this puritanical, absolutist stance on redistribution of wealth, that's why I point out the dichotomy. You go on and on about how it's economically unfair and unconstitutional to force people to pay for other people's problems, yet you benefit from the very type of system you decry.

You never drew any sort of distinction on what entitlements were *acceptable* in your purview. You just used a broad brush to paint all entitlements as bad Why is it okay to redistribute wealth on one level, but not another? That seems like drawing a rather arbitrary, subjective line in the sand to me.

To construe it as a partisan attack is nothing but deflection.

You can be in a snit about it all you want, but that's the truth of it.

[OperaTenor]

Right, the temperature here has gone up a bit, but I will say that I have gained something from the analysis of various aspects of this issue.
I see the point of making a person bear the financial cost of his own folly and not take it as an inalienable right to dip into others' pockets.
I also see the importance of investing in education against drug abuse, unhealthy eating and drinking habits, unprotected casual sex, etc. etc.
Recognising that some of these practices are social norms, while others are gradually becoming (or have become) unacceptable by the majority of the population, where do we draw the line between our preparedness to cooperate in footing the bill for the consequences, and when the individual is compelled to pick up the tab?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I have also done a stint in the military. And it is indeed the case that catching certain diseases as a demonstrable result of disobeying standing orders leads to a court-martial.

What about the recurrent urethral stricture I contracted, thanks simply to a judgement call by a urologist when I was 11, and the 21 surgeries I've had to attempt to repair it? What about the osteomilitis that came from nowhere in 1992, infected my lumbar spine and almost killed me? What about the hardware implanted from injuries in 2003 when the 18y.o. idiot turned left into me and hit me?

Are those my fault, and should I be solely responsible for paying for them, no matter what?

As a result of those three things, I can *never* get health insurance on my own in the present system we have in this country, because they can exclude me. Should I just be SOL?

Just what is the appropriate penalty for these?

[DavidS]

OT, of course you're right, and penalising you for things you have no control over is wrong; a benevolent society is one that will communally cover the treatment of such problems.
The other end of the scale is people voluntarily bringing troubles on themselves. What should our attitude be in those cases?

[barfle]

I think it's worth noting exactly who is the recipient of benevolence before you can say a policy is benevolent.

In a policy of socialized medicine, the person receiving the care might feel it is benevolent. But the person paying the taxes, who is healthy because he takes good care of himself, is not being treated with benevolence.

While I fully agree that the health care system in the US is busted badly, I don't believe socialism is the proper repair.

OT, you cited several issues that were "not your fault," and even cited whose fault two of the three were. Since it was their fault, why aren't they bearing the responsibility? From what I've seen, it's because you made a determination to let them off the hook. While that may be benevolent on your part toward the guilty parties, what happened is that you shifted the burden on to innocent parties. This does not strike me as moral.

As far as your osteomilitis is concerned, all I can really say is, while it may not have been a result of your behavior (or anyone else's), stuff happens. Some people have congenital conditions that require them to buy clothes that are specially made, so they are considerably more expensive. So does the guy who is 7'-6" tall deserve a subsidy from the government for that special problem he has that's no fault of his own? In particular, do I owe him a pair of hand-crafted size 19 ski boots?

[Shapley]

OT,

I've pointed out numerous times on this board that, in the current system, our government covers 45% of medical costs. I've also pointed out that our government takes care of the old and the indigent. Nowhere have I suggested that we roll back those figures or demanded that we offer less, I've merely asked where we draw the line. I think I've made my position clear to everyone but you.

As for my stepson, I'm sure he would gladly change places with you.

David, regarding your question of where we draw the line, I suppose that is the question each of us has to answer for ourselves, and petition our legislators accordingly. If we feel that the legislatively-approved system is inadequate, we can petition for more, and also contribute to charities that exist to make up for the shortfalls in the systems' offerings. As free citizens in a democratic system, what more can we ask?

V/R
Shapley

[DavidS]

Barfle and Shap, I appreciate your efforts to map out the correct place to "draw the line" and think that between us we have at least, in agreement, found the proper way of describing the process.
Admittedly, expecting society to subsidise someone's (albeit objective) need for oversize clothing and shoes is way out of the realm of comparison with socialised medicine...
Back to my military experience, recruits outside a certain range of weights or dimensions were (and I think still are) exempt from service - I expect the economic cost of clothing them also comes into it.

[BigJon]

David, regarding your question of where we draw the line, I suppose that is the question each of us has to answer for ourselves, and petition our legislators accordingly. If we feel that the legislatively-approved system is inadequate, we can petition for more, and also contribute to charities that exist to make up for the shortfalls in the systems' offerings. As free citizens in a democratic system, what more can we ask?

Right! When crafting legislation, please err on the side of individual freedom and the liberty to determine our own fates. That's all I ask.

[barfle]

Admittedly, expecting society to subsidise someone's (albeit objective) need for oversize clothing and shoes is way out of the realm of comparison with socialised medicine...
Back to my military experience, recruits outside a certain range of weights or dimensions were (and I think still are) exempt from service - I expect the economic cost of clothing them also comes into it.

The point I was addressing with my rather far-out example was OT's concern that, through no fault of his own, he had some problems that he wanted the rest of us to provide him with assistance for. Again, the issue is not black and white, but where it gets too dark a shade of gray for most of us. Clearly, opinions differ, and when a line is drawn, I expect there to be justification that will satisfy those who missed it by THAT MUCH. Which, I also recognize, will be impossible.

I remember a story from my Army days in the late 1960s. The draft for VietNam was still in force, and a guy who had feet larger than any stocked boot was drafted. He ended up driving a general around until they got boots made for him.

[OperaTenor]

OT, you cited several issues that were "not your fault," and even cited whose fault two of the three were. Since it was their fault, why aren't they bearing the responsibility? From what I've seen, it's because you made a determination to let them off the hook. While that may be benevolent on your part toward the guilty parties, what happened is that you shifted the burden on to innocent parties. This does not strike me as moral.

Re the stricture: I've covered this before. First, I was 11 years old, and had no say in the matter. Second, my parents got some consultation regarding suing the bastard, and the advice was that the guy wasn't guilty of malpractice, just bad judgement, and it would go nowhere(remember, this was in 1971). Even by the time I turned 18, the statute of limitations had run out even if I wanted to reopen the matter. What do you propose be done?

Re the wreck, more dead horse beating. The kid and his parents had no assets, lots of debt, only the liability limit of the car insurance policy to draw on. To pirsue that one further was a total exercise in diminishing returns. To sue for future income would have cost more than any money I might have realized from it. Again, what would you propose be done? Should I have made a moral point of dumping those people out of their house, assuming their deby, and increasing my legal costs, all at the same time?

[barfle]

I didn't say you didn't have reasons for letting them off the hook. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars of either situation to tell you what to do, but it appears from this viewpoint that you're looking for deeper pockets - those with the ability to pay instead of the responsibility to pay.

Why not go after the tobacco companies? How about Microsoft? Big oil? Sony? Why the US Government?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

...a basic Constitutional premise - you or I or anyone else are not entitled to someone elses property - their money, their labour, or their livelihood...

Well, you're one for three. I have no right to your livelihood. You do, however, have an obligation to pay taxes. The national "we" has a right to your money. You also have an obligation to serve the needs of the country. Jury duty, and suchlike, at the very least. We (again, the national "we") do in fact have a right to your labor.

Freedom without duty is anarchy. The balance between liberties and obligations is an eternal tension - thus the ongoing dissent.