Rocinante, don’t you believe that it would be very hard for you (almost impossible) to get good health care without the goverment support?.
Ummm, from decades of first hand experience...No!
Barto - 16 March 2008 07:11 PM
The diference with food is that food is cheaper and easier to get. The point with health care is not that it is essential, the point is that health care is very expensive and is easy for a big company with no regulation to abuse a consumer.
If you think companies (big or small) don’t have any regulations, you are living in a fantasy land.
And we all know that government could never (and has never) abused anyone! At least with private companies, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Try suing the government.
What do you mean food is cheaper? WHY do you think it is cheaper?! Have you seen the types of machinery that modern farmers use?! Those things aren’t cheap! What about the thousands of semi-trucks and train cars used to get that food to market? And what about the supermarkets themselves? Next time you are in one, just think about how much money it must take to keep that mega-store open (rent, upkeep, insurance, payroll, utilities, product, advertising, etc.) But granted, by the time you pick up that loaf or bread or gallon of milk, at that store yes it is cheap for you to buy the end product. And somehow, the marketplace managed, now didn’t it? And it managed to provide you the product at a price you readily admit is cheap! Government didn’t come up with all those innovations. Government didn’t figure everything out. Government didn’t provide you with your bread or milk. The private marketplace did.
Do you remember when computers first came out? Heck, do you remember when hand-held calculators first came out? The calculators (which were huge and limited in their functions) were several hundreds of dollars. But they, and the computer you are currently using, they dropped in price. They didn’t just drop in price. They plummeted over time, to the point that calculators are now almost given away. Computers are within nearly everyone’s price range. No god-like government had to step in to bring the price down to allow most people to afford these wonders of modern technology. Enough companies sprang up to give consumers a choice. Make a crappy product, and the consumers would go elsewhere - and the manufacturers know that. As for health care, get the government and the frivolous lawsuits out of the way and allow the marketplace to do what it does best, and the price of health care will drop. And just like the calculators and computers, the quality will go up.
Yes, there should be some government involvement insomuch as laws preventing fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, etc. But most people who clamor for socialized medicine only seem to hear the word “free” and think they will be getting something for nothing. Sorry to break this to them, but there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. The private marketplace (with limited regulations) may not be the perfect system humans have come up with for such things, but it is light years ahead of government control.
All I ask is: Would I and others like me be free to choose to opt out of a government-controlled health system? If the answer is “No” (which it always is), then I would have to ask: Why are they afraid of people being free to choose their own health care?
I should have known better than open this Pandora’s Box. Like I mentioned in another thread about people’s politics, I’ll never be able to convince anyone. I don’t even know why I try. Good luck everyone and have fun discussing this issue and any issue that springs from it. A new (and very busy week) is coming up for me! Later!
[quote author="Barto"date="1205734287"]
Rocinante, don’t you believe that it would be very hard for you (almost impossible) to get good health care without the goverment support?.
Ummm, from decades of first hand experience...No!
Well, I am not ready to argue with an american how the things are in the US, but I can tell you what happened here. We allways had a dual system: a private one (with charge) and a public one (for free). In the begining, the private one used to use abusive contracts, until a law known as ‘obligatory medical program’ passed and baned certain clausules in the contracts. As far as I know, in the US the health care companies can put jsut everything in the contract, am I right?.
By abusive contract I understand: no limited frametime to tell than a illness was preexistent, limitations on certain practices and avoid incorporating new developments.Of course, everything was ‘experimental’ for the companies and they allways had a kind of nihilist skepticism : almost every treatment beyond antibiotics never showed its benefits beyong any doubt.
What do you mean food is cheaper? WHY do you think it is cheaper?! Have you seen the types of machinery that modern farmers use?! Those things aren’t cheap! What about the thousands of semi-trucks and train cars used to get that food to market? And what about the supermarkets themselves? Next time you are in one, just think about how much money it must take to keep that mega-store open (rent, upkeep, insurance, payroll, utilities, product, advertising, etc.) But granted, by the time you pick up that loaf or bread or gallon of milk, at that store yes it is cheap for you to buy the end product. And somehow, the marketplace managed, now didn’t it?
And it managed to provide you the product at a price you readily admit is cheap! Government didn’t come up with all those innovations. Government didn’t figure everything out. Government didn’t provide
you with your bread or milk. The private marketplace did.
I have no troubles admiting that the private marketplace is a good source of innovation. But as the food is audited by a the FDA, I think every contract signed between a health care company and a person should follow standards procedures and certains kind of clausules should be banned.
Regarding the price of food, maybe the subsidies have anything to do with its price (’Ive red a couple of papers claiming that the subsides effects on prices are modest or negative, but I think that those studies lacks formality and doens’t prove their point ). Of course, here it is not subsidize, but we still have a couple of regulation in order to try to keep the food’s price low (talking into account what the newspapers are saying about the global economy now, I am not expecting they succeed any longer).
Yes, there should be some government involvement insomuch aslaws preventing fraud,
I think that we should discuss what is ‘fraud’. Certains kinds of abusive contracts are frauds, as I see it.
But mostpeople who clamor for socialized medicine only seem to hear the word “free” and think they will be getting something for nothing.
I think it is not the case on this board. Everyone supporting the free medicine here know that it is payed using taxes.
The private marketplace (with limited regulations) may not be the perfect system humans have come up with for such things, but it is light years ahead of government control.
I wouldn’t deny that the private marketplace has produced the best results in the history, but I’d add that the best result were produced after the market was corrected with regulations (I don’t want to work as they worked at the begining of the industrial revolution).
All I ask is: Would I and others like me be free to choose to opt out of a government-controlled health system? If the answer is “No” (which it always is), then I would have to ask: Why are they afraid of people being free to choose their own health care?
I can speak for others, but my answer is not ‘no’ (of course, without tax reduction: you have to pay for the police although you don’t use it) . I feel confortable with my private health care company, but I want a public system as a last resource for the ones who cannot afford a private one. The diference between both in negligible in terms of medical care, but is hughe in terms of confort ( you want confort, pay it, but the medical care is free)
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a “right” to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true.
If you’re a citizen of Canada, you don’t really have a right to any particular health care service. You don’t have a right to heart surgery. You don’t even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you’re the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you’re not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot—Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets.
The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there.
[Emphasis added.]
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient…
Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain.
Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For a while it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.
Point one is easy. Don’t allow private patients to use NHS facilities and staff. In this way they don’t jump the cue. As far as I know here in the UK we have the NHS and private health care. They are seperate.
If you are a rich private patient you get treatment in a private hospital. Therefore a rich American banker who gets private treatment in the UK is not jumping the cue. He is not involved with the NHS at all.
The second point is another non issue. I don’t deny that private hospitals are less busy and becuase of this they give more time to patients but that is becuase they exclude those who can’t afford treatment. What you are saying is that the quality of treatment goes up when hospitals start excluding people, so national health services are defunkt.
Quite a big assumption to make. As someone who has worked for and been a patient in British NHS hospitals I can tell you they are not perfect but they are something to be proud of. It is not some creaking third world antique where doctors are sawing legs off and practising trepanning. It is a modern health service that cares for and saves the lives of people who would be excluded by a private health system.
If you are poor you don’t have to sell your house to pay for treatment in the UK. As far as I know in America even those with medical insurance policies can sometimes find themselves having to find tens of thousands of dollars to pay for treatment.
I think it is a wonderful thing. From the natural history of David Attenborough to the science documentaries of Horizon the BBC excels at making quality programming but there is a bias to the views of the far left in many of the programes they make.
I have recently been watching a series called The Last Enemy. It is a fantastic thriller but it is about how Western governments and drugs companies are ruling and ruining the world. There are no Islamic terrorists in this show just oppressed secular Afghanis and Pakistanis being cruelly treated by an authoritarian state which has shady intelligence services monitering our every move and assasinating those who disagree with what the Western rulers do.
Another series is called Spooks which is about our intelligence agency MI6. In one episode Islamic terrorists take some hostages but it turns out that they are Mossad agents trying to blacken the name of Islam.
I know that these programmes are just drama but I think they reflect the kind of mindset which is prevelant in our society.
The West is evil and brown people are oppressed by our evil racist Western societies.
It only goes to show the state of affairs that we are in when demonising the West can be mainstream but criticising right wing religious maniacs is seen as racist.
The West is evil and brown people are oppressed by our evil racist Western societies.
This is confusing… Wasn’t BP saying earlier that the West is good and white people are being oppressed by evil brown Muslims?
Nope. I do not have a simplistic onsided view of the world as you do. I have criticised Islam as an ideology, that is not the same as demonising a whole race or society. You have persistantly condemned the West as the worst of the worst. Now that is demonisation.
If I say that the religion of Islam is ignorant and oppressive that is just criticising an ideology not a race.
Wake up Balak Islam is not a race, Islam is not a race, Islam is not a race, Islam is not a race.
I did not say the West is good. I even criticise much of what the West does I just refuse to demonise the West and see it’s every action and inaction as evil.
The far left see the US led intervention in Kosovo as American imperialism and their inaction in Sudan as proof of Western racism. The intervention in Somalia was yet more imperialism but the inaction over Zimbabwe yet more proof of racism. They see the police arrest a suspected terrorist and immediatly make the assumption that the suspect is innocent and the police racist. They ignore the freedoms we have in the West and bang on ad nausem about the oppresive nature of our societies. They march against war hand in hand with people who would like to see the freedom to protest banned and make common cause with people who wish to see equality and freedom go in the dustbin of history. They demonise the West and apologise for tyranny.
Nutters the lot of em. You show all the signs of this loonacy Balak.
Also my criticism of Islam is mainly about the hardships Islam creates for the secularists, gays and women of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
It is good liberal values and a feeling of solidarity with those people that informs my criticism. Your criticism of the West and respect for Islam is just based on dogma and conspiracy theory.
I would like to know. Do you respect the religiosity of America? If not why, If you respect Islam why not respect devout American religiousity?
Could it be the dogma of the far left which creates such a mindset?
Balak you keep popping up making an outragous comment about racism or the malevolance of the West but when I call you out or ask you a question you go all quiet, ignore the question and the points made then pop up after the thread has moved on with another outrageous comment.
It looks to me that you are incapable of answering the questions put to you or countering the points made, it seems you are running from reality.
To retaliate by ridiculing my comments and questions as not worthy of reply is a cheap trick and not a valid response, so don’t try it.
Do you respect devout American religiosity? Answer the question.
Ignorance has no limits. Certainly not limited to the Left leaning bleeding heart examples you are focusing on here.
I too have felt disenfranchised by many on the left. However, apologies for Islamic Extremism have not been a big issue with the people I meet here in Marin County, California.
9/11 was indeed a catalyst. For the Left, Right and many who had no passion for politics previously.
The war in Iraq, the phony War on Terror, were also tipping points.
Even prior to 9/11, I have had my issues with the Left. Many so-called liberals also embrace homeopathic remedies, harbor irrational fears of technology, and generally place doubt on scientific analysis that counters their prejudices.
9/11 produced additional opportunities for irrational memes to take hold in Liberal circles. Ironically, 9/11 conspiracy theories have garnered Liberal support, in spite of the fact that the source of these theories stem from anti-government, ultra-conservative, Libertarian roots. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Ron Paul (Libertarian Presidential Candidate), and his anti-war stance has fooled many Liberals into thinking that the policies he spouts are in line with Liberal, Left leaning policies. And this could not be further from the truth.
All this said, I think I should re-iterate once again my concern regarding a balanced look at the concerns you have raised in regard to Islamic Extremists.
Personally, I view much of what begins in Madrassas and ends in Terrorist acts, the same way I view what happens to people who get caught up in cults. While I do agree with you regarding our mutual disdain for extremism in any form, I may not agree with you as to what should be done about it. This is where the dialogue needs to be more clear.
Many see the only option, when confronted with such extremism, is to exterminate, or otherwise cripple the perpetrators and their associates. Unfortunately, this does nothing but create martyrs who end up strengthening the cause rather than diminishing the threat.
My suggestion may be just as controversial. I would recommend that those who have been caught up in this kind of thing should be put through a kind of de-programming. Similar to the therapies that are used when a person is recovered from a cult. It may not be necessary to go as far as to reject their religion. The effort would need to focus on the violence, the totalitarian ambitions, with a focus on tolerance.
There should also be some recognition for the damage done by foreign governments and their efforts to obtain resources from the occupied nations that these people come from. Without this respect for their societies, livelihood, and their traditions, we cannot expect them to revise their thinking.
You see, a solution cannot be simply to wipe extremists from the face of the earth. This is an oversimplification. As I suggested in my earlier responses. A reasoned approach must deal with all the factors, not just those that we have an issue with.
Wow Charles. I completely overlooked this post. I was so freaked out by Mano’s strange obsession with me I let it slip me by.
I agree ignorance abounds on the right but as I come from a leftist community it is leftist craziness I am confronted with. Which is why I started this thread.
When you talk about complexities it makes allot of sense.
The leftists court political Islam because it is in direct conflict with America.
They absolve Islam as an ideology from blame because they see the hand of the West in the creation and support of modern political Islam. Nothing can sway their opinion.
Nothing can, they see that Islamist violence creates an excuse for the West to go to war. They hear the bigoted utterances of Islamists and we see their murderous acts but none of this historical, geo-political, verbal evidence and carnage is enough for them to condemn or criticise the ideas of an ethnic minority as this goes against the dogmas of the left. What springs from the well of the mystical east is to be respected and celebrated, especially if it is anti-Western. The complexities do not matter when they come into conflict with the dogmas of the left.
I am learning more and more about the Libertarians on this forum and they are a strange bunch. A kind of cross breed. Staunchly liberal at the same time very right wing. This is very strange for a Brit to understand
What I can really understand in your post is what you say about
“Many so-called liberals also embrace homeopathic remedies, harbor irrational fears of technology, and generally place doubt on scientific analysis that counters their prejudices.”
This drives me crazy the way that many on the left embrace the pseudo science of Deepak Chopra or condemn Western medicine as nothing more than a cynical ploy to get us all on prescription drugs and enrich the drugs companies.
That science is nothing but a religion of the imperialist West whose Archbishops and Ayatollahs are the corporate C.E.O’s of the arms industry and drugs companies.
Evil scientists creating Frankenstein foods, cloning sheep, torturing embryos, monkeys and rats and creating experimental drugs to trial on unsuspecting African communities.
I admit that science is not perfect but it is not a dogmatic religion based on faith.
I get so fed up with the withering looks and disapproval that I receive from these hippy dippy spiritual leftists when I say that a homeopath deals in placebo or a shaman is a charlatan.
For me to defend evidence based inquiry as the best way forward is a leap of faith to far and puts me in the realm of the deluded but to believe that your Indian guru communes with spirits and realigns chakras is quite sane, well backed up by evidence and must not be challenged.
To believe what the scientists say is crazy but to believe in crystal healing or astral projection is mandatory and questioning it will get you put in the bigot box again.
Excerpts from German newspaper Die Spiegel, I think it highlights the mindset behind the demonisation of America quite well.
Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs
By Claus Christian Malzahn
“Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you’re saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you’ll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time. For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic. In terms of history and foreign policy, the Americans have either been too isolationist or too imperialistic.”
“Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of “24” and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day.”
“Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn’t making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there’s no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness.
Not so safe
Iran is a different story. The last time someone made a joke on German TV about an Iranian leader, the outcome was not pleasant. Exactly 20 years ago, Dutch entertainer Rudi Carell produced a short TV sketch portraying Ayatollah Khomeini dressed in women’s underwear. Carell received death threats. The piece, which lasted all of a few seconds, led to flights being cancelled and German diplomats being expelled from Tehran. Carell apologized. Jokes about fat Americans are just safer.”
........................................................................................................................................................................................
Of course it’s the same in the UK and it’s not only Ken Livingston, members of Respect and We Are Change that indulge this kind of madness. On mainstream political show Question Time four days after the 911 attacks Phillip Lader, the former US Ambassador to the UK had been attempting to express his sadness over the attacks when a number of audience members had shouted him down to voice their anti-US opinions. Mr Lader had looked close to tears.
At times, David Dimbleby struggled to control the discussion as voices and tempers became raised. Some audience members said the US was ultimately responsible for the attacks because of its foreign policy.
Also on Question Time more recently a woman in the audience made a comment saying that because the Americans had supplied the Mujahadeen and Osama Bin Laden when they where fighting the Afghan Communists and the Soviet Union that the correct response to the attacks in New York and Washington was for America to bomb itself. This gained an enormous round of applause.
On the other hand Hillary Ben was on Question Time with Piers Morgan and Piers Morgan was roaring with laughter about democracy failing in Iraq and the audience applauded him. When Hillery Ben mentioned the brave democrats, secularists and liberals in Iraq who are being massacred by people who are against everything we believe in and he was booed.
London mayor Ken Livingston invited Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London and welcomed him as a guest of honour. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a harsh critic and opponent of the liberals, feminists and socialists of the Arab world but our left wing mayor welcomes him as a man of moderation. Ken Livingston has chosen to befriend and support the theocratic far right of the middle east over and above the liberals and leftists.
What is going on? To see people I once respected and supported supporting the theocrats of the far right plus respecting and encouraging the accommodation of ultra conservative religiosity right here in the liberal West.
Much of the left in London and the West as a whole are making a positive decision, rather than support the liberals, feminists and socialists in the Muslim communities they are supporting the movements of the far right.
They only go along with movements of the far right if they are anti Western.
It all goes back to the belief that America and the West are malevolent this illogical obsession is leading the left to actively work for and support those who are against freedom and equality. This kind of madness is dangerous. We need a liberal left which is true to it’s values and is sane.
At the moment the left is betraying it’s values and is lost in a blind madness of hate for America and capitalism.
The left is letting us all down by concentrating on conspiracy theories about Neocons and supporting the far rights movements of the Middle East.
Shame on us.
As a response to the Neocons and Middle Eastern theocrats the world deserves better than a bunch of mad conspiracy theorists and self loathing inverted racists.
The politically correct response to religion and ideas of “working with them”, will no doubt allow for the madness to continue. Such accommodative approaches used by secular liberals and liberal and moderate religionist will lead us to the possible demise of civilization. I have been reminded many times these days (I live in the U.S.) that “secular liberals” who pander to ideas of “multiculturalism” and political correctness are more afraid to criticize religion then the very individuals who are working to destroy religion. It’s backward and is nothing less than fear mongering. It’s nice to want to mitigate the more extreme elements, but that is only a short term objective, the goal is to vanquish the idea that religious beliefs are practical in the first place. It is the religious beliefs that are creating the extremist and the liberal religionist are allowing the madness continue when they know it may be their children, their friends, their relatives who are the extremist, the ones who are the enemies of reason. They are the indoctrinators of unreason, faith, and the religious virus.
Thats rich, you have run away from every question put to you Balak. My main point is how bad Islam is for society as a conservative and superstitious ideology.
As for wars on the West and others. Open your eyes. There is a war going on in Afghanistan with Western soldiers fighting Muslim extremists. 911, 77, Madrid. Yala in southern Thailand, The Philippines. Northern Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, AlQuieda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Ut Tahrir, Jamat I Islami. There are plenty of people who want to kill in the name of Islam, Muhammad and Allah. Or are all of these violent conflicts just conspiracies cooked up by Neocons so they can rule the world.
The people butchered and bombed in Thailand are not evil Americans or do they work for the CIA and deserve everything they get?
There is a war going on in Afghanistan with Western soldiers fighting Muslim extremists. 911, 77, Madrid. Yala in southern Thailand, The Philippines. Northern Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, AlQuieda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Ut Tahrir, Jamat I Islami. There are plenty of people who want to kill in the name of Islam, Muhammad and Allah. Or are all of these violent conflicts just conspiracies cooked up by Neocons so they can rule the world.
These are examples of wars/occupations by Western imperialist forces against Muslim countries, deliberately conflated with isolated criminal attacks by tiny groups of conspirators against some civilian targets (and throwing in the names a several of Islamist political organizations to confuse things even more).
I repeat, where are the ‘Muslim wars against the West’ (outside of diseased imaginations of racists steeped in the mythologies of ‘white-man’s-burden’ and ‘Western victimhood’)?
At least with private companies, they can be held accountable in a court of law. Try suing the government.
