Health care in the Brave New World

[Robert]

We are moving inexorably toward guaranteed access to health care for all. Health is good. Without it we cannot work, play, invent, or reproduce.

In my country, however, there are several obstacles to good health, and all the doctors, insurance cards, and medicines in the world can't offset them. Here are a few:

sedentary jobs

junk food

obesity

lack of exercise

bad diet

dangerous sports

fast cars

I know, these overlap and some are different ways of saying the same thing. The problem as I see it is that the people are currently free to sit on their couches with me, watch that shiny new (and expensive) HD television over at Ulster's house, wrestle bears like Agora in Alaska, race Ferraris like Pusher, get fat like ... well, you know who you are ... and eat fried fish and greasy chips in Ireland with Connolly. Dragon is the only one who eats right, but I'll bet even he didn't do his pushups this morning.

My question is this: since we are going to guarantee health care for all, what if any reciprocal responsibility comes with this right? May I eat myself to near death and then demand a state-paid bypass operation? May I smoke filterless "Comrades" and rightfully demand chemotherapy when I get the Big C? May I eschew oranges and demand free meds when I develop rickets and scurvy?

I say no. The State should take care of us only if we take care of ourselves. I know this is "mean spirited," but where am I wrong? Seems to me the only way to fix this is with more government intervention, because people left alone are going to smoke and drink to excess, and no one likes Brussels Sprouts except me and the Belgians.

[spartan]

Well seeing how there is no money in a Communist society i dont think that treating people who are the way they are because of certain unhealthy lifestyle choices wont be a problem anymore at least economically (Plus people cant use the old "wasting the taxpayers money" excuse as there is no money and thus no tax! :lol: ).

Plus what if we all stopped treating car accident victims just because the victim happened to be driving over the speed limit?

So the ambulance arrives and just leaves them there to potentially die?

What if this was your mother we are speaking about who was only driving fast because she was late and had to get somewhere in time?

When it comes to healthcare we cant afford to take a Libertarian attitude towards it as it is inhumane and only serves those of us who can afford it (Libertarianism = rich persons Democracy).

Anyway i thought that Libertarianism is about letting people live the lives that they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone elses "Liberty"?

[Demogorgon]

I think Universal tax funded healthcare with no strings attached is a simple common sense position even in a capitalist society.

For example Britain (with a similar lifestyle to America) manages to achieve a better standard of healthcare at a lower cost than America. Indeed such is the saving that we spend a lesser percentage of GDP on taxes for healthcare than Americans despite Americans also having to buy health insurance.

Indeed anyone supporting a non universal model of healthcare might want to dwell on the fact that owing to inefficiencies of each hospital having its own management and the huge cost of health insurance and the rampant profiteering there, America pays higher taxes for the "privilege" of also having to buy insurance.

You don't even need to look at the issue ideologically to see that it is blatantly obvious that Universal healthcare is an extraordinarily good idea.

Incidentally things like unhealthy lifestyles are such a red herring in these arguments. Would you deny healthcare for those who need it most? Currently lets not forget as well, taxes on things like tobacco more than pay for healthcare costs.

[Robert]

Would you deny healthcare for those who need it most?

No, but those who "need it most" are children with leukemia and birth defects, not obese smokers who are ignoring the advice of their doctors. That's in America. In Europe I realize it's already a fait accompli.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 08, 2007 04:00 pm

Would you deny healthcare for those who need it most?

No, but those who "need it most" are children with leukemia and birth defects, not obese smokers who are ignoring the advice of their doctors. That's in America. In Europe I realize it's already a fait accompli.
Well the plain economics of it are that it is the obese smokers that are paying for the children with leukemia.

I don't understand once again though why anyone could oppose universal healthcare. It is quite simply cheaper

[Robert]

I don't object to the coverage in principal. And I don't dispute that it's cheaper. Do you dispute that it would be even more cheaper (and just as moral) for society to make a simple request that it's insured citizens take better care of themselves? It seems a perfectly reasonable quid pro quo.

I don't say at all that I am obviously right on this. Spartan raises some tough points and I don't have a good answer. The ambulance example is not terribly good because the state has the safety interest in clearing up the accident and moving the victims regardless of insurance, so leaving them to die is not a realistic scenario. Now, even if he doesn't have health insurance in the USA, and many do not, don't worry, he gets taken to the nearest emergency room and he is treated. The hospital must admit him, and I don't have a problem with that.

But if I can admit that one system is more efficient than 500 systems, can't you admit that the sedentary smoker on average will need more medical care than the vegetarian runner?

(Now, an ugly argument you might have made is that the smoker is likely to die early and require less social support in old age. So maybe it all works out, but we've got a real problem with cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity in the states, and it's getting worse.)

I take your answers so far to be, "No, the citizen owes the state nothing. He may sit on his couch all day and do nothing but eat if he likes. That's his unqualified right." This seems monstrously unfair to that segment of society that does eat right and exercise.

[Lynx]

Someone said that for every dollar you spend on prevention, ten dollars are saved in health care costs. Coincidentally, some people clearly require an incentive to keep fit. Figure it out.

Personally, I'm against sending young, healthy people to die on the battlefields.

[Dr Mindbender]

i find that the amount of beaureacracy created by the capitalist establishment is probably one of the biggest threats to health in the free market area. In the US you can even visit a hospital unless you've got the right policy, and even though the UK has a state owned health system the government makes it increasingly difficult to see a doctor. You cant see one cause theyre only open Mon-Fri at normal business hours,( which is no use when you're stuck in a 40 hour 9-5 job )and in order to see one even when they are open you have to book 2 days or even a week to a fortnight in advance. In Cuba in the other hand, the doctor's door is always open and you can walk in off the street and they will see you no questions asked.
Today I had to get a bus to obtain a prescription from the out of hours centre and walk around in the freezing cold and rain even though my health wasnt up to it.

[Robert]

Sincerely sorry you're under the weather, Ulster. Get well soon. But are you saying the meds should have been delivered to you instead of your taking the bus? (This was VERY common in the USA back in the 50's btw. Local pharmacies had a kid who would just drive around in a VW delivering prescriptions.)

Still, I have only seen one poster who seems to understand what I am referring to; the Left wants the supposed economies that will result from nationalizing the system (I'll concede the point with misgivings), and I want the economies that result from extinguishing fags (cigarettes), exercising, and eating your carrots and peas.

Let's all agree to go exercise and eat an apple today. I'll go first. Be back in 30 minutes. No kidding.
Ulster, you're exempt on medial grounds.

Dr. Robert (the Great)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the Great+--> (Robert the Great)
Sincerely sorry you're under the weather, Ulster. Get well soon. [/b]
thank you. :)

Robert the Great

But are you saying the meds should have been delivered to you instead of your taking the bus?
Certainly not. The problem is in my town there is only a basic health centre with limited facilities without a resident doctor so they could not offer me a prescription. I'm simply stating that if there was a doctor readily available (as there usually is under communist economies like Cuba) then my bus journey and subsequent walk would have been unnecessary.
As is stands, the whole thing is just an innconvenient ordeal.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 08, 2007 04:24 pm
I take your answers so far to be, "No, the citizen owes the state nothing. He may sit on his couch all day and do nothing but eat if he likes. That's his unqualified right." This seems monstrously unfair to that segment of society that does eat right and exercise.
No, that's not my answer. Quite simply taxes on tobacco already cover the extra cost to healthcare of smoking, taxes to alcohol do the same for drinking etc. The exception of course is junk food. You could argue over that, I suppose, but I can also over some solutions.

What are you proposing here? That the state carries out an intrusive survey of each persons lifestyle and decides based on that whether or not they are worthy for healthcare? I don't like that much. Not that we need do nothing. We can encourage healthy living. We can give material incentives even. (I have long been an advocate of providing nutritious food completely free of charge at all schools). But if you want the government inspecting my dining habits ("You had a second glass of wine with that meal? No healthcare for you) I am afraid I am going to have to give a polit "No thanks?"

[Dr Mindbender]

Rob the great is walking a very fine and ambiguous border here. What about self harmers who cut themselves as a result of mental illness or personality disorder? Should they be denied medical assistance on the grounds they are causing harm to themselves? What about workers who voluntarilly choose to work in industries where they are in potential risk, such as breathing asbestos dust or carcenogenic materials? Should we deny treatment to prostitutes who catch HIV and other STD's?

[Robert]

What are you proposing here? That the state carries out an intrusive survey

No, I am suggesting that the only we can get people to eat healthy and exercise, at least in the fatso land I live in, is to force them. We aren't going to force anybody to do anything here in the Republic of Nice where any attempt at coercion of anything will get you sued for hurting my feelings.

if we are going to have universal health care, we are going to have to either just put up with self destructive behavior and pay for it with a smile, or, yes, monitor eating and exercise habits. Both are intolerable, so I actually do support your idea of taxes and incentives for healthy practices, but I would do so in a liberal democratic/capitalist environment.

The incentives are very hard to monitor, though. We could offer tax credits for the smoker to quit and the obese to walk daily, but you again get in to intrusiveness if you want to fairly enforce it. Part of the USA's problem is that there are soda machines in the schools. Kids love sugar, so they buy it, and Coca Cola kicks money back to the taxing authorities. Many local initiatives have gotten rid of the machines. But kids don't like green beans, carrots, or apple juice. They want coke and pizza.

Maybe this is just an American problem. When Americans travel to Europe, we always note with wonder how fit the French and the Italians seem to be, notwithstanding their bread and pasta. The Brits don't have a problem either , but that's because there's nothing to eat there except , au choix, bangers and mash, oatmeal, or Irish stew. You get sick of the same ole shit and so you don't eat much of anything.

Cheery-bye now.

[Dr Mindbender]

perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...

You know, like putting a doctor within reasonable distance rather than in every other town?
<_<

[Robert]

I can&#39;t object to more doctors, but here, the doctors put themselves where they want. And unless you live way out in the countryside, there&#39;s no problem finding one. Access to their clinics is, yes, limited by ability to pay, especially for the specialists like internal medicine, oncology, and dermatology. Access to emergency care is available in my city, even for the uninsured. Follow-up and prevention are problematic.

Guaranteed access to preventative care, as I think Lynx suggests above with customary reticence, would no doubt help the general level of health; but I worry about free riders and abusers to be honest. Some people work, take care of themselves and never go to the doctor. Others don&#39;t work, abuse themselves, and need care every day. I don&#39;t disagree that the dog eat dog society I live in no doubt drives some to alcohol and drugs. But you cant measure this, and they&#39;re in the extreme minority, and I dont want a revolution just to accomodate them. Not sure the revolution would change anything.

[Lynx]

I was under the impression that hospitals in the USA are required to treat people who do not have any health insurance. Thus, you already have de facto universal health care.

If you were to take the lobbyists out of the picture, perhaps solutions could be implemented. Nothing changes, because the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries prefer the status quo.

Preventative health services are a good investment.
Promoting a fitness conscious culture is a good investment.
If Mike Huckabee can lose weight, why can&#39;t you?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

and eat fried fish and greasy chips in Ireland with Connolly
Burdocks FTW&#33;&#33;

[Robert]

I was under the impression that hospitals in the USA are required to treat people who do not have any health insurance. Thus, you already have de facto universal health care.


In the emergency room, yes, that&#39;s true. After that, it gets a little complicated.

We also have "medicaid," a program for low income people to get emergency room and longer term care. They go to regular hospitals and the hospitals are reimbursed by the government. The big brouhaha over here is lack of insurance for the poor, not lack of treatment, though obviously the rich can get more specialized, longer and thorough treatment than the poor.

Just wondering: in Britain, if you feel like you need to stay in the hospital another week after being treated for stroke, post-natal care, infectious disease like TB, or just food poisoning, but the doctors say you can finish recuperating at home, how does that work out? Do they force you out when the doctor says it&#39;s time to go home?

[spartan]

Just wondering: in Britain, if you feel like you need to stay in the hospital another week after being treated for stroke, post-natal care, infectious disease like TB, or just food poisoning, but the doctors say you can finish recuperating at home, how does that work out? Do they force you out when the doctor says it&#39;s time to go home?
Nowadays you probably do have to leave when the doctor says as we had a bed crises here in Britain where there wasnt enough beds for incoming patients.

Besides if there is no good reason to stay in hospital, especially when the doctor (who is the expert) says that you can leave, then there is no point in you staying there any longer as this is just selfish to people who might really need the bed and services which you would require by staying there for another week when you dont have to.

[Robert]

Besides if there is no good reason to stay in hospital, especially when the doctor (who is the expert) says that you can leave, then there is no point in you staying there any longer as this is just selfish to people who might really need the bed and services which you would require by staying there for another week when you dont have to.

Oh, no doubt about it. but see that&#39;s the problem with the current system here, too. You always have someone other than the patient making that call. I am really curious to know whether in Britain it is the doctor who makes that call, or a hospital administrator or national health service administrator or social worker. Presumably they work in tandem.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 09, 2007 09:58 am

I was under the impression that hospitals in the USA are required to treat people who do not have any health insurance. Thus, you already have de facto universal health care.


In the emergency room, yes, that&#39;s true. After that, it gets a little complicated.

We also have "medicaid," a program for low income people to get emergency room and longer term care. They go to regular hospitals and the hospitals are reimbursed by the government. The big brouhaha over here is lack of insurance for the poor, not lack of treatment, though obviously the rich can get more specialized, longer and thorough treatment than the poor.
Can you elaborate?
If non-emergency problems are not treated, then that suggests those who cannot afford to, do not seek medical help. In the longer term that could lead to complications, then an emergency, then &#036;&#036;&#036; treatment...

[Robert]

That&#39;s basically correct. The very poor here get "medicaid," a poverty program, and it covers quite a bit. Retirees get social security, which also covers a lot.

The problem in the USA is for the middle class, too young for medicare, too much income to qualify for medicaid. They often have private insurance but it&#39;s getting too expensive, or even if provided thru their work, it has such high deductibles that an illness can break them. They could definitely benefit from some help with insurance for preventative care.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The role of the state in a liberal democracy is primarily to protect the recognized rights of the people. Now in nearly all first world democratic systems, there exists a right to life, as well as a right to bodily integrity and to privacy ("privacy" in this context meaning personal autonomy). There would be no point in infringing on the person&#39;s right to life and bodily integrity in favour of their right to personal autonomy, or infringing on their right to personal autonomy in favour of their right to life and bodily integrity, when in fact both rights can be vindicated by the maintenance of a universal healthcare system.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 09, 2007 06:05 pm
The problem in the USA is for the middle class, too young for medicare, too much income to qualify for medicaid. They often have private insurance but it&#39;s getting too expensive, or even if provided thru their work, it has such high deductibles that an illness can break them. They could definitely benefit from some help with insurance for preventative care.
No matter how you look at it, health care costs have to be paid. America is doing a poor job based on GDP expenditures. Too bad for the middle class - I guess they don&#39;t have enough &#39;pull&#39; with the politicians to demand something be done.

[synthesis]

I think there is an unnecessary distinction being made here.

The problem is not that people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to cost more money in the system, but that poor people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to suffer disproportionately to wealthy people with unhealthy lifestyles.

[Lynx]

I suppose the reasoning is that people are more health conscious if they have to pay for treating their health problems from their own pocket.

[Robert]

The problem is not that people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to cost more money in the system, but that poor people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to suffer disproportionately to wealthy people with unhealthy lifestyles.

Well, yes, but that&#39;s an argument to end class distinctions especially based on wealth. You wouldn&#39;t want THAT, would you?

Even in commie heaven there will be class distinctions. Imagine utopia. We&#39;ve burned the mother f---er down and we&#39;re staring from scratch. No religion, no money, no property. 3 day workweeks, youngsters turned loose joyfully with hoses (I still think that&#39;s funny). Even there, some folks are genetically smarter, stronger, swifter, wiser, shrewder, more energetic and creative and charismatic than others, and it&#39;ll ever be thus unless you murder all the intellectuals or all the mediocre and retarded. Absent that, then one way or the other, the elite will rise to the top like cream, and with their added responsibility will come favored treatment by the medical establishment. Better houses and cars too. Want to bet? Compare my posts to Pusher&#39;s and tell me he won&#39;t be riding in a commie limo to commie meetings while I take a commie People&#39;s Bus (will it be grey or red) to my commie job.

So much for utopia. I honestly hope I&#39;m wrong, but I don&#39;t see how.

Just one capper&#39;s opinion.

[synthesis]

I see nothing utopian about suggesting that there could be a system where necessities are distributed on a different basis than they are today. There will never be unlimited supply - however we argue that with the proper technology, distribution could be more rational than the current system, where people&#39;s access to necessities is determined largely by their place in society.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 10, 2007 06:07 am
Want to bet? Compare my posts to Pusher&#39;s and tell me he won&#39;t be riding in a commie limo to commie meetings while I take a commie People&#39;s Bus (will it be grey or red) to my commie job.
If that were all true, I can assure you that you would both be scratching in the dust, but you would have abit more dirt than pusher, not the other way around. He&#39;s duuumb.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 09:16 pm
perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...

You know, like putting a doctor within reasonable distance rather than in every other town?
<_<
Since a technocracy seems to be based upon the workers themselves choosing what to do and when to do it, how does a technocracy "put" a doctor in every town, if the doctors themselves choose to congregate in London?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:02 am
I suppose the reasoning is that people are more health conscious if they have to pay for treating their health problems from their own pocket.
Even though people are healthier in countries with nationalised health services?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+December 10, 2007 03:01 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ December 10, 2007 03:01 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 06:02 am
I suppose the reasoning is that people are more health conscious if they have to pay for treating their health problems from their own pocket.
Even though people are healthier in countries with nationalised health services? [/b]
thats on average though. The beourgiose dont care if the streets are littered with dead workers, as long as they&#39;re okay.
<_<

[Lynx]

Health may be related more to culture and family life than whether you may have to pay for it sometime in the future. We can get people to squirrel away money for retirement, but not to take care of their health. The consequences are too far removed for most people to notice.
Besides, taking care of yourself only delays the inevitable effects of aging. A huge amount of health care is spent on the elderly.

[Robert]

He&#39;s duuumb.

Maybe, but he has some bright guy writing his posts.

[Comrade Rage]

One thing I think that should be addressed here is whether or not universal care can operate efficiently in a capitalist country. I happen to believe it can&#39;t.

All over the airwaves I am hearing about &#39;long lines&#39; and &#39;waiting lists&#39;. Such things exist in many parts of America today, and it is only going to get worse. Supposedly it&#39;s worse in Canada already, but why?

I&#39;ll tell you why: because the proposals on the table do not take the supply side into account. The only way you can have a state-subsidized healthcare system that functions even half-way decently here is if you expand training programs for medical staff. Currently it is extremely hard for a person to enter into medical school, even if they are qualified. Why? Because it&#39;s too fucking expensive to become a doctor. Currently only the bourgeosie and petty bourgeosie can get into med school, thus limiting the amount of doctors (especially good doctors) and under a capitalist &#39;free-market&#39; economy this results in higher healthcare costs.

How do I think we should fix this? Simple, just subsidize healthcare education. Make it so that the monetary barricades to med school are demolished, and you&#39;ll see doctors living comfortable lives, but not exorbitant ones and the snags with this system will largely fall away. I&#39;ll cost a lot more in the meantime, but after 5/10 years people will be much more healthy, and the system will not be flodded with requests for care.

But subsidizing medical school is contrary to capitalism isn&#39;t it?
Yes it certainly is. That is my point

Universal healthcare has been dubbed &#39;socialized medicine&#39; by the American conservatives. This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with them&#33; :) It is a socialist measure that only should be instituted after the revolution. All of the reformists, and even center-right parties like the Dumocrats like to pick and choose these measures from socialism, but they won&#39;t work here because American society has not moved forward enough.


Originally posted by Ulster Socialist
perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...
My thoughts exactly. Socialism, unlike capitalist society seems to be disciplined a little better. People will respect themselves more, and watch what goes into their own bodies.

Not to mention, food will be of a more consistent quality. The majority of cows in America are fed a semi-toxic diet of hormones and other cow products. This is indefensible, especially when the corn that these cows are supposed to be eating is available in vast quantities, and it&#39;s production is surpressed to make it more valuable.

And when you have a centrally planned economy producing food according to need rather than marketability, the reasons for producing junk food are vaporized. And the &#39;entrees&#39; sold in supermarkets that may fatten people up, but lack actual nourishment will cease to be produced as well, for the sake of efficiency.

It&#39;s for these reasons that capitalist society/market economy and &#39;socialized medicine&#39; can only tenuously coexist at best, and create a crisis at worst.

[Dean]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11, 2007 01:05 am
Universal healthcare has been dubbed &#39;socialized medicine&#39; by the American conservatives. This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself agreeing with them&#33; :) It is a socialist measure that only should be instituted after the revolution. All of the reformists, and even center-right parties like the Dumocrats like to pick and choose these measures from socialism, but they won&#39;t work here because American society has not moved forward enough.
Hillary said that the only way to get universal healthcare (which is not necessarily socialized healthcare) is to require that all people buy health insurance.

That&#39;s right. The whole deal is nothing more than a trick by the democrats to garner favor; the gov&#39;t has had its hand in the healthcare business to some degree for a long time now, and I can guarantee you that this is not socialization or nationalization of the healthcare industry. This is just more capitalist bullshit; the fight for freedom and socialism will not be furthered by this.

[Robert]

I don&#39;t deny that. But if you ask most health care professionals what the principal cause of disease is, it&#39;s bad diet and lack of exercise.

[spartan]

I don&#39;t deny that. But if you ask most health care professionals what the principal cause of disease is, it&#39;s bad diet and lack of exercise.
So that means that people dont deserve the right to healthcare if something goes wrong just because of their lifestyle?

What if the health problem that you had ended up not being connected to the lifestyle that you live?

I have known people who have drinked and smoked all their lives and have gone on to live past a hundred and then finally die, not of the effects of the lifestyle that they lived, but of natural causes (Old age).

I dont know about you but people should have whatever lifestyle (Whether it be healthy or unhealthy) they choose as long as it doesnt affect anyones elses lifestyle choice.

This is a basic fundamental right of every human and money should never determine who gets what as everyone is born equal (Though it is after that it all changes as you could be born into a rich family or make alot of money when you are older yourself usually at the expense of others) and deserves, to an extent on their abilities, equal treatment whether in health or in education etc.

[Robert]

So that means that people dont deserve the right to healthcare if something goes wrong just because of their lifestyle?


"Just because"???

At some point, my position is that you owe some minimal responsiblity for your own health. Society can do only so much. Only a madman could say otherwise, unless he&#39;s a child or has congenital health problems over which he has no control. But don&#39;t worry, we here in the Republic of Nice will continue to take care of you even if you insist on bungee jumping, binge eating, and smoking 4 packs a day. We "owe" it to you, right?

God knows, however, why anyone should care about you if you don&#39;t care about yourself. There is a cost for everything. I simply ask whether the people owe something, anything, in exchange for their guaranteed care . You say no, I say yes.

Now go eat a fucking apple or something before you get as sick as you are making me.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 11, 2007 10:11 pm
There is a cost for everything.
Yes, and where does this cost go if the government doesn&#39;t pay for it?

[Tungsten]

Demogorgon

For example Britain (with a similar lifestyle to America) manages to achieve a better standard of healthcare at a lower cost than America.
An old wives tale perpetuated by people like Michael Moore. Anyway, free or not, the NHS is a piece of shit and there&#39;s no getting round it.

Billions have been spent recently with absolutely no percievable increase in quality. You die waiting for operations. You get superbugs. You get thown out on the streets to make room for others. You get mental patients wandering around attacking people (or at least that&#39;s what I saw last time I visited one of these places).

There&#39;s no single reason why healthcare is better in one country than in another. From what I understand, the number of obese people is far higher in the US than in the average European country, which points to lifestyle choice. And I do believe that hospitals in the US will still treat you whether you can afford it or not, so what&#39;s the problem there?

Indeed such is the saving that we spend a lesser percentage of GDP on taxes for healthcare than Americans despite Americans also having to buy health insurance.
There&#39;s no logical reason or evidence to suggest that nationalising healthcare is any cheaper. It&#39;s simply replacing one middle man with another.

Plus, if we&#39;re going on the assumption that everything Tony Blair said during his career is a lie, which I think is a fair one, he insisted a few years ago that privatisation would be more expensive too (while pursuing what appears to be a progressive privatisation of the service), so work it out yourself.

You don&#39;t even need to look at the issue ideologically to see that it is blatantly obvious that Universal healthcare is an extraordinarily good idea.
Your ideology and reality don&#39;t match up. Let me let you into a little secret: Go to an NHS hospital and then go into a private one and see the difference yourself. The latter being the level of healthcare you want, rather than the crap pushed at us by the government. The best thing that could be done at the moment is private control with government (taxpayer) funding.

Incidentally things like unhealthy lifestyles are such a red herring in these arguments.
No, they&#39;re entirely relevent. Why should the rest of us be punished monetarily because someone else is living an unhealthy lifestyle? All that does is create is a new, undeserving set of victims.

Would you deny healthcare for those who need it most?
The answer to that is context dependent and in light of the previous sentence, the answer is: "probably yes".

Currently lets not forget as well, taxes on things like tobacco more than pay for healthcare costs.
That old chestnut again. I&#39;d like to see a breakdown of the costs to see if this is genuinely true.

Robert the Great

I don&#39;t object to the coverage in principal. And I don&#39;t dispute that it&#39;s cheaper. Do you dispute that it would be even more cheaper (and just as moral) for society to make a simple request that it&#39;s insured citizens take better care of themselves? It seems a perfectly reasonable quid pro quo.
If the costs were open and obvious i.e. every time someone ate a hamburger or lit a cigarette, £5 was removed from his bank account, you can bet your arse that he&#39;d complain about that. But while the expenses are funded by taxation and hidden under a blanket of moral rationalisations, it&#39;s easier to ignore.

Ulster Socialist

In Cuba in the other hand, the doctor&#39;s door is always open and you can walk in off the street and they will see you no questions asked.
I&#39;ll believe that when I see it and only if Michael Moore is nowhere to be seen.

I&#39;m simply stating that if there was a doctor readily available (as there usually is under communist economies like Cuba) then my bus journey and subsequent walk would have been unnecessary.
Communist economies? I didn&#39;t think any existed. Which ones are they and where&#39;s the proof that doctors are more readily available than anywhere else?

perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...
Yeah, and getting rid of capitalism will make sewage smell like perfume, no doubt.

Lynx

I was under the impression that hospitals in the USA are required to treat people who do not have any health insurance. Thus, you already have de facto universal health care.
Precisely.

Too bad for the middle class - I guess they don&#39;t have enough &#39;pull&#39; with the politicians to demand something be done.
I thought these kooks were the ones who elected Bush.

Kun Fanâ

I think there is an unnecessary distinction being made here.

The problem is not that people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to cost more money in the system, but that poor people with unhealthy lifestyles are going to suffer disproportionately to wealthy people with unhealthy lifestyles.
Beggar-thy-neigbour politics now, is it? That&#39;s low.

I see nothing utopian about suggesting that there could be a system where necessities are distributed on a different basis than they are today. There will never be unlimited supply - however we argue that with the proper technology, distribution could be more rational than the current system, where people&#39;s access to necessities is determined largely by their place in society.
Which is in turn determined how? In 99% of cases, personal choice and ability.

COMRADE CRUM

My thoughts exactly. Socialism, unlike capitalist society seems to be disciplined a little better. People will respect themselves more, and watch what goes into their own bodies.
Where&#39;s the proof they&#39;ll do this?

Not to mention, food will be of a more consistent quality.
Again, proof?

And when you have a centrally planned economy producing food according to need rather than marketability, the reasons for producing junk food are vaporized.
You want to put a centralised authority in charge of the food supply and have them determining people&#39;s "need" for food?

And the &#39;entrees&#39; sold in supermarkets that may fatten people up, but lack actual nourishment will cease to be produced as well, for the sake of efficiency.
Dictated by another centralised authority no doubt. Seig Heil.

[Robert]

You want to put a centralised authority in charge of the food supply and have them determining people&#39;s "need" for food?

Yes, he does, and in charge of everything else. Surely this doesn&#39;t surprise you?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 10, 2007 02:59 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 10, 2007 02:59 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 09:16 pm
perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...

You know, like putting a doctor within reasonable distance rather than in every other town?
<_<
Since a technocracy seems to be based upon the workers themselves choosing what to do and when to do it, how does a technocracy "put" a doctor in every town, if the doctors themselves choose to congregate in London? [/b]
why do you think they choose to &#39;congregate&#39; in London at the moment? Its because its the financial centre. Remove those motives, by distributing the resources and opportunities around the country.

These pull factors arent presently managed by the workers, they are controlled and co-erced by the current establishment beneficiaries and idealogues.

[Robert]

the current establishment beneficiaries and idealogues.

Ulster, if you move London banks and brokerage houses to Liverpool, everyone in London is just going to move to Liverpool. Unless you order them not to move on pain of arrest. Why don&#39;t you let people do what they want, you know, live and let live? Stand up for freedom&#33;

How&#39;s the new telly?

[synthesis]

Which is in turn determined how? In 99% of cases, personal choice and ability.

...and trust funds, inheritance, and other, very non-meritocratic forms of wealth distribution.

Why, I ask, should an orphaned kid have lesser standards for health-care than a kid who was born to, say, the Rockefeller family?

Well, you answer, that&#39;s the way the system is set up.

True, I respond, but that might not always be the case, and I argue that it shouldn&#39;t be.

We&#39;ll see what happens.


Beggar-thy-neigbour politics now, is it? That&#39;s low.

Because of course when people are poor, it always has to do with personal choices and morality. And of course when people are rich, it just means they worked smarter and harder.

There&#39;s no possible room for discussion that the system is not fair. Capitalist mythology relies on the presumption that the system is totally fair and all are equal in their ability to pursue the dollar.

The system works for you and therefore any attempt to change the status quo means that they&#39;re just trying to make it unfair in their favor.

Over the next several decades, society may very well be divided by those who are blind and those who can see. Question is, will you open your eyes?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)
An old wives tale perpetuated by people like Michael Moore. Anyway, free or not, the NHS is a piece of shit and there&#39;s no getting round it.[/b]
Yes there is, put more money into it. If the NHS got the funding that the ministry of defence got, it would be the envy of the world. It isnt the infrastructure thats the problem, its the mismanagement.

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)
Your ideology and reality don&#39;t match up. Let me let you into a little secret: Go to an NHS hospital and then go into a private one and see the difference yourself.[/b]
We would, but most of us cant afford to go to a private hospital. <_<

[email protected]

I&#39;ll believe that when I see it and only if Michael Moore is nowhere to be seen.
Yes, I&#39;ve seen the footage smuggled out of Cuba by anti-communist groups, but the point is at least there is an infrastructure in place for people who dont have access to healthcare insurance. Instead of like in capitalist countries like America where if they can get a policy they dont get any care at all. The poor standards are the effect of almost half a century of NATO trade sanctions. During the early years of the cuban revolution, both the education and health systems there were the envy of the western world but when the economy started to crumble because of foreign boycotts that is when it started to deteriorate.

There was evidence regarding this on a documentary i saw a few years ago called &#39;holidays in the axis of evil&#39; which was shown by BBC4 unfortunately it&#39;s not on youtube.

Tungsten

Yeah, and getting rid of capitalism will make sewage smell like perfume, no doubt.
I never said that, but it&#39;ll almost certainly reduce the blood pressure of the working class. <_<

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)
Ulster, if you move London banks and brokerage houses to Liverpool, everyone in London is just going to move to Liverpool. Unless you order them not to move on pain of arrest. Why don&#39;t you let people do what they want, you know, live and let live? Stand up for freedom&#33; [/b]
Why would they if you distribute them equally? If you have 2 cities, A and B, and pull factor x, in equal measure in A and B why would a dweller in city A move to B if theres no greater reward for doing so?

Anyway, there wouldnt be any banks or brokerage houses in a post revolutionary society, because they&#39;re not integral to communistic administration&#33;



Robert the great


How&#39;s the new telly?
Ask the capitalists&#33; <_< I&#39;m still waiting for the january sales.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 08, 2007 10:19 am
We are moving inexorably toward guaranteed access to health care for all. Health is good. Without it we cannot work, play, invent, or reproduce.

In my country, however, there are several obstacles to good health, and all the doctors, insurance cards, and medicines in the world can&#39;t offset them. Here are a few:

sedentary jobs

junk food

obesity

lack of exercise

bad diet

dangerous sports

fast cars

I know, these overlap and some are different ways of saying the same thing. The problem as I see it is that the people are currently free to sit on their couches with me, watch that shiny new (and expensive) HD television over at Ulster&#39;s house, wrestle bears like Agora in Alaska, race Ferraris like Pusher, get fat like ... well, you know who you are ... and eat fried fish and greasy chips in Ireland with Connolly. Dragon is the only one who eats right, but I&#39;ll bet even he didn&#39;t do his pushups this morning.

My question is this: since we are going to guarantee health care for all, what if any reciprocal responsibility comes with this right? May I eat myself to near death and then demand a state-paid bypass operation? May I smoke filterless "Comrades" and rightfully demand chemotherapy when I get the Big C? May I eschew oranges and demand free meds when I develop rickets and scurvy?

I say no. The State should take care of us only if we take care of ourselves. I know this is "mean spirited," but where am I wrong? Seems to me the only way to fix this is with more government intervention, because people left alone are going to smoke and drink to excess, and no one likes Brussels Sprouts except me and the Belgians.
Good health comes from preventing illnesses from arising, treating them while they&#39;re still small, healing them when they&#39;re evident. Preforming a surgery is like besieging a city, according to Sun Tzu. A good doctor/health profesional would promote good halth beyond medicines and splints an bandages. Getting innoculations, using good dietary plans, excercising and utilizing the brain are ways to stay healthy. Health care goes beyond gauzzes and stiches, into the prevention of pathological, emotional, social problems. Socialized health care would hopefully address all of these things.

[Robert]

Try this: the library, like the health system you envision, is public and open to all.

1.Some library patrons are clean, quiet, and respectful. They return their borrowings on time. Always.

2. Some are less clean, less quiet, but still respectful. Sometimes they return books on time. They try their best, which is just passable in a civil society.

3. Some are dirty, use their cell phones in the teeth of signs that say not to, and almost never return their books on time. I hate these more than numbers 4 or 5, because they know better, but don&#39;t care.

4. Some are filthy, belligerent to staff, extremely noisy, and socipathically indifferent to my rights. They steal books.

5. Some do all of number 4, plus use the pages of "Crime and Punishment" to wipe their butts after they do number two. On the library seats or on the bathroom floor.

At some point, they forfeit their rights for abuse of same.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 14, 2007 12:30 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 14, 2007 12:30 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 02:59 pm

Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 09:16 pm
perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...

You know, like putting a doctor within reasonable distance rather than in every other town?
<_<
Since a technocracy seems to be based upon the workers themselves choosing what to do and when to do it, how does a technocracy "put" a doctor in every town, if the doctors themselves choose to congregate in London?
why do you think they choose to &#39;congregate&#39; in London at the moment? Its because its the financial centre. Remove those motives, by distributing the resources and opportunities around the country.

These pull factors arent presently managed by the workers, they are controlled and co-erced by the current establishment beneficiaries and idealogues. [/b]
I would think there is no shortage of opportunities for doctors anywhere right now.

But I am not talking about right now.

I am talking about the hypothetical technocracy.

You have described technocracy as where the workers will work where they want, how they want, and what they want. Everyone will have far more than enough purchasing power (energy credits) then one could possibly use. The result will be a human panacea. Fine.

Yet now a technocracy will "put" doctors into certain areas (which needs to be explained "who" does the putting and "how" the putting is done). There is now a suggestion of some sort of financial incentive to go out to the moors and work with the hounds of the baskervilles or something, will be available. Further explanation is now required.

[Tungsten]

Kun Fanâ

...and trust funds, inheritance, and other, very non-meritocratic forms of wealth distribution.
In 1% of cases. I very much doubt that you&#39;re a meritocrat anyway- it doesn&#39;t usually sit well with the egalitarian politics most of you support.

Why, I ask, should an orphaned kid have lesser standards for health-care than a kid who was born to, say, the Rockefeller family?
Why shouldn&#39;t they? More to to the point, why should the rest of us had to provide it?

Because of course when people are poor, it always has to do with personal choices and morality. And of course when people are rich, it just means they worked smarter and harder.
In 99% of cases, it&#39;s fairly true.

There&#39;s no possible room for discussion that the system is not fair. Capitalist mythology relies on the presumption that the system is totally fair and all are equal in their ability to pursue the dollar.
"Fair" meaning what?

The system works for you and therefore any attempt to change the status quo means that they&#39;re just trying to make it unfair in their favor.
Why should anyone want to rig society in favour for people who don&#39;t succeed? This would probably be bad for all of us in the long term.

Are you sure they&#39;re all innocent victims of circumstance? I doubt it; no single cause is magically going to explain why some people are sucessful and some aren&#39;t, but outside a totalitarian state, personal choice is the deciding factor in 99% of cases. There are individuals that say otherwise, usually the ones who seek to escape the consequences of their actions (and learn nothing), or don&#39;t understand cause and effect.

Inequality is the inevitable product of being free to live your own life. Some of you just don&#39;t get this.

Over the next several decades, society may very well be divided by those who are blind and those who can see. Question is, will you open your eyes?
Very drole. The question is: What exactly is it you can see, other than the inside of your own rectum?
Ulster Socialist

We would, but most of us cant afford to go to a private hospital.
If you weren&#39;t paying so much for the white elephant, most of us would. It&#39;s not actually that expensive.

The poor standards are the effect of almost half a century of NATO trade sanctions. During the early years of the cuban revolution, both the education and health systems there were the envy of the western world
Pity the human rights record wasn&#39;t. <_<

[synthesis]

Why should anyone want to rig society in favour for people who don&#39;t succeed?

Because the capitalist system intrinsically demands that some people cannot "succeed." Someone has to be the janitor, someone has to do the shitty stuff - a common criticism of communism. In capitalism, it&#39;s usually performed by the people who had to drop out of high school to support their parents.



Are you sure they&#39;re all innocent victims of circumstance? I doubt it; no single cause is magically going to explain why some people are sucessful and some aren&#39;t, but outside a totalitarian state, personal choice is the deciding factor in 99% of cases. There are individuals that say otherwise, usually the ones who seek to escape the consequences of their actions (and learn nothing), or don&#39;t understand cause and effect.

Yes, capitalists cannot question the role of conditions. That would mean that there&#39;s something wrong with the system rather than the people it&#39;s fucking over.

For example, there have been numerous studies that demonstrate that a resume with a "white" name will accrue many more call-backs than a resume with a "black" name like Jamal. Just on the basis of a name that "sounds black", people are rejected for jobs.

That&#39;s not really what I&#39;d call a meritocracy.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=115864


"Fair" meaning what?

Equality in the pursuit of money. That&#39;s the loving side of God in the capitalist religion. You can&#39;t deny it, of course. That&#39;s the ultimate blasphemy for a capitalist.

Unfortunately, if you deny that not all are equal in this regard, then you&#39;re contradicting basic fact (such as the studies I discussed earlier).

But religions are never known for their regard for "fact."

[synthesis]

Pity the human rights record wasn&#39;t.

This is one of my favorite themes. "Capitalist humanitarianism&#33;" Only when the dictator is communist, though.

They&#39;re all righteous indignation up until it has to do with suppressing the enemies of imperialism. Then it was a "historical necessity."

Funny how much more credibility they could gain if they condemned Pinochet in the same breath as Castro.

Capitalist discourse only really incorporated humanitarian rhetoric around the 70&#39;s, when they realized you could get people on your side by appealing to the moral value of your brand of imperialism, for the good of the people you just subjected to paramilitary death squads.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 14, 2007 01:20 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 14, 2007 01:20 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 12:30 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 02:59 pm

Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 09:16 pm
perhaps unhealthy lifestyles are a by-product of the 24 hour consumerist status quo? Remove the stressful effects of capitalism, people will start to look after themselves more...

You know, like putting a doctor within reasonable distance rather than in every other town?
<_<
Since a technocracy seems to be based upon the workers themselves choosing what to do and when to do it, how does a technocracy "put" a doctor in every town, if the doctors themselves choose to congregate in London?
why do you think they choose to &#39;congregate&#39; in London at the moment? Its because its the financial centre. Remove those motives, by distributing the resources and opportunities around the country.

These pull factors arent presently managed by the workers, they are controlled and co-erced by the current establishment beneficiaries and idealogues.
I would think there is no shortage of opportunities for doctors anywhere right now.

But I am not talking about right now.

I am talking about the hypothetical technocracy.

You have described technocracy as where the workers will work where they want, how they want, and what they want. Everyone will have far more than enough purchasing power (energy credits) then one could possibly use. The result will be a human panacea. Fine.

Yet now a technocracy will "put" doctors into certain areas (which needs to be explained "who" does the putting and "how" the putting is done). There is now a suggestion of some sort of financial incentive to go out to the moors and work with the hounds of the baskervilles or something, will be available. Further explanation is now required. [/b]
the infrastructure present in certain areas of the country is a product of appropriation under the present ruling ideaology.

Under the technocracy, there will be no greater incentive to live in London than anywhere else because the infrastructure will be the same and equal in one place as it is in anywhere else.

[Robert]

Instead of like in capitalist countries like America where if they can get a policy they dont get any care at all.

Ulster, I just saw this. We have had many, many posts explaining that this is not the case. They do get care and the hospital often has to eat the cost. Sometimes it is reimbursed by the government. Obviously the rich man can get things the poor can&#39;t such as elective surgery, cosmetic surgery, sophisticated diagnostic testing. Just like he can eat lobster every night instead of bologna (baloney).

What&#39;s the British equivalent of baloney? Banger-oneys?



Because the capitalist system intrinsically demands that some people cannot "succeed." Someone has to be the janitor, someone has to do the shitty stuff

Kun, you must be a student. That&#39;s the only possible explanation for this ridiculously incorrect statement. Management of American companies at least is filled with men who started at the very bottom. Surely you know that if the manager of a McDonald&#39;s or whatever corporation you want to name sees a janitor who is enthusiastic and diligent, he is going to give that employee an edge as soon as an opening as a cook becomes available. The cook can become an assistant manager, then a manager, then a regional manager. The bellboy can become a concierge, then clerk, then an assistant manager, then a manager. He can save his surplus earnings if he wants and open his own business. It happens every single day.

You also ignore the fact that many of these "shitty jobs" are ideal for people looking for their first job, or a student job, or a part time job. They aren&#39;t required to remain as janitors forever.

You also ignore the fact that we will need janitors in the utopia you envision. Don&#39;t commies have bowel movements?

If you don&#39;t believe all this you are simply deluded by too much propoganda and too little real world experience. I am very disappointed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)Ulster, I just saw this. We have had many, many posts explaining that this is not the case. They do get care and the hospital often has to eat the cost. Sometimes it is reimbursed by the government. Obviously the rich man can get things the poor can&#39;t such as elective surgery, cosmetic surgery, sophisticated diagnostic testing. Just like he can eat lobster every night instead of bologna (baloney).[/b]
Well, if america had nationalised health care then there wouldnt be any need for people to sigh and cross their arms as they dig into their pockets full of resentment.
I very much doubt that the hospital will pay 100% of the time, what if they simply dont have the money? Its really quite repugnant that the life or death institution of healthcare can be compared to something as trivial as your &#39;choice of venue for a meal out&#39;.This attitude is precisely why i&#39;m hesitant to leave the UK or any nation without state owned healthcare for an extended period of time.

Robert the great

What&#39;s the British equivalent of baloney? Banger-oneys?
Probably sausages, but thats an entirely different context altogether.

[pusher robot]

This attitude is precisely why i&#39;m hesitant to leave the UK or any nation without state owned healthcare for an extended period of time.

Sheesh. Do you still live with your parents, too?

[Robert]

This attitude is precisely why i&#39;m hesitant to leave the UK or any nation without state owned healthcare for an extended period of time.

Oh, my, God&#33; Ulster, don&#39;t be melodramatic. You&#39;re too young to get sick in the first place, and in the second place I just told you we aren&#39;t going to let you die.

Come to the USA. We&#39;ll take you to a ball game and go hunt ducks and fish and argue, jam on guitars, drink whisky, go to Billy Bob&#39;s in Fort Worth for some great country music and have a hell of a good time. I can see you in a big red pickup truck with a pair of ostrich cowboy boots and a Stetson hat. You won&#39;t even WANT to go to home. Now don&#39;t tell me that don&#39;t sound good.

We&#39;ll eventually have to deport you. They&#39;ll drag you kicking and screaming onto a plae bound for the UK.

[synthesis]

Management of American companies at least is filled with men who started at the very bottom. Surely you know that if the manager of a McDonald&#39;s or whatever corporation you want to name sees a janitor who is enthusiastic and diligent, he is going to give that employee an edge as soon as an opening as a cook becomes available. The cook can become an assistant manager, then a manager, then a regional manager. The bellboy can become a concierge, then clerk, then an assistant manager, then a manager. He can save his surplus earnings if he wants and open his own business. It happens every single day.

I certainly acknowledge that there is more mobility within the system than most socialists give it credit for. A lot of us don&#39;t recognize that capitalism is an "efficient" and adaptive system, which has posed difficulties for our theory.

But not everyone can make it. Capitalism requires people to fill those positions. When the local population starts asking too much for their labr, they&#39;ll start using illegal immigrants, for example, so as to drive the market down. And so on.

There are some things about capitalism which are mutable and efficient. At the heart of capitalism, though, someone has to do the shitty stuff, and it&#39;s usually - but not always - determined by the place in society into which one was born.

There&#39;s not really any opportunity for advancement when living day-to-day costs more than you&#39;re earning from your job.

[Robert]

Capitalism requires people to fill those positions.

What in the world are you talking about? Do the laws of human physiology cease under socialism? After the revolution, are we going to let the garbage accumulate on the streets and feces overflow onto restroom floors and just lie there for fear of classism?

I guess you could order the rich to clean the toilets, but then we&#39;d be right back where we started ... with janitors.

Thank you for at least acknowledging the existence of upward mobility.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)
Oh, my, God&#33; Ulster, don&#39;t be melodramatic. You&#39;re too young to get sick in the first place, and in the second place I just told you we aren&#39;t going to let you die.
[/b]
I&#39;m too young to break a leg? Thats news to me. I&#39;ve read on our own foreign office website that the cost of such an injury would cost approximately £10 000 to have seen to in the USA, and i doubt your authorites would think twice about charging the full fee to a foreigner like me. They would never let immigrants have free treatment en masse, because it would create too great a precedence.


Originally posted by Robert the [email protected]


I can see you in a big red pickup truck with a pair of ostrich cowboy boots and a Stetson hat.
No, thanks, i wouldnt suit brown leather.


Robert the great


We&#39;ll eventually have to deport you. They&#39;ll drag you kicking and screaming onto a plae bound for the UK. The &#39;american dream&#39; is long dead and buried, eh? :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 15, 2007 01:20 am

This attitude is precisely why i&#39;m hesitant to leave the UK or any nation without state owned healthcare for an extended period of time.

Sheesh. Do you still live with your parents, too?
No, but at least i know if i have an injury or illness i will at least get some degree of treatment regardless of my financial situation.

[Robert]

I
&#39;m too young to break a leg? Thats news to me. I&#39;ve read on our own foreign office website that the cost of such an injury would cost approximately £10 000 to have seen to in the USA

I thought you mistrusted information put out by governments.

Repairing a broken leg may cost all of that, twice that, or half that for all I know, but again I assure you that even if you&#39;re broke, you&#39;ll have your leg straightened, casted and pinned if necessary under one of any number of private and public initiatives, then you&#39;ll be ready to bust broncos and win dance contests at Billy Bob&#39;s in Fort Worth. Yeeeeee-haaaa&#33;

Seriously Ulster, if you&#39;re afraid to travel to the USA for fear you&#39;re going to break your leg and have it go untreated, you lack the adventurous spirit I thought I had detected. How you&#39;re going to survive a violent revolution is quite beyond me.

[Tungsten]

Kun Fanâ

Because the capitalist system intrinsically demands that some people cannot "succeed." Someone has to be the janitor, someone has to do the shitty stuff - a common criticism of communism.
Then your argument is meaningless. Of course you could gave just copped out and resorted to the "we&#39;ll get robots to do it", which seem to happen often here, so I suppose I should be thankful.

Yes, capitalists cannot question the role of conditions. That would mean that there&#39;s something wrong with the system rather than the people it&#39;s fucking over.
Just as well that I&#39;m right then, isn&#39;t it?

For example, there have been numerous studies that demonstrate that a resume with a "white" name will accrue many more call-backs than a resume with a "black" name like Jamal. Just on the basis of a name that "sounds black", people are rejected for jobs.
Which is down to racial prejudices (i.e. individual action and experience) and not the system. Systems don&#39;t "cause" racism. Only individuals do that and there weren&#39;t any laws specifically barring minorities from doing anything last time I checked.

I should probably ask what you think you&#39;re going to do about it.


This is one of my favorite themes. "Capitalist humanitarianism&#33;" Only when the dictator is communist, though.
Jesus Christ.

&#39;Sure, I&#39;ll get kneecapped if I ever criticise the government, but at least I&#39;ll get to stay in a free hospital&#33;&#39;

Sounds great, that. Sign me up.

The rest of the rant is just straw.

[RevSkeptic]

Then your argument is meaningless. Of course you could gave just copped out and resorted to the "we&#39;ll get robots to do it", which seem to happen often here, so I suppose I should be thankful.

"we&#39;ll get robots to do it"

Sure, but then who will be the pets of the engineers and technicians that made those robots?

The fact that 90% of humanity have no special interests in technical, scientific or artistic subjects means that these are the mindless "mass human" or more accurately the leftover semi-apes that are carried as the dead weight humanity from the technical and scientific developments that came ever since man rubbed two sticks together to start a fire.

The small mutant population of thoughtful, creative and imaginative people in the tribe that increases the production capacity of the tribe does not necessarily imply that the rest of the tribe are going to develop the same thoughtful and creative properties of those who were doing the inventing.

It&#39;s human nature that the mass of lemmings would worship the violent or "wealthy" chief rather than the quiet and contemplative philosopher. Which means the only way this would ever change is if humanity experience an extinction level event which wipes out most of the mindless lemmings. The end of the oil age and the subsequent violent struggle for resources as we are witnessing right now would do quite nicely.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the Great+--> (Robert the Great)
I thought you mistrusted information put out by governments[/b]
When did i say that? I may have said that by in large, they operate with a view to fulfilling conflicting interests, but that has nothing to do with the &#39;accuracy&#39; of information they put out to the public.
In certain circumstances, such as this, it is in their interests to be truthful because they want to avoid circumstances that will entail spending extortionate sums on consular expenses aiding british people who get into trouble abroad.

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected]

Seriously Ulster, if you&#39;re afraid to travel to the USA for fear you&#39;re going to break your leg and have it go untreated, you lack the adventurous spirit I thought I had detected.
I didnt say i dont plan on going to the USA per se, merely that i dont fancy the idea of spending any discernable time period or set up a home there because if nothing else, my views would probably land me in hot water over there anyway.
Nor do I want to rely on a privatised health system that will no doubt be a heavy burden on my wallet on conscience, which it almost certainly will owing to the state of my health. The American fascination for cars wont do my asthma any favours.

Robert the Great

How you&#39;re going to survive a violent revolution is quite beyond me.
Well, you see I dont plan to be on the losing side, come that day.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:13 pm

Then your argument is meaningless. Of course you could gave just copped out and resorted to the "we&#39;ll get robots to do it", which seem to happen often here, so I suppose I should be thankful.

"we&#39;ll get robots to do it"

Sure, but then who will be the pets of the engineers and technicians that made those robots?

The fact that 90% of humanity have no special interests in technical, scientific or artistic subjects means that these are the mindless "mass human" or more accurately the leftover semi-apes that are carried as the dead weight humanity from the technical and scientific developments that came ever since man rubbed two sticks together to start a fire.


I dont know if you ever had the same excercise at school, but when i was 7 or 8 the teacher sat us all round and asked us what we wanted to be. The most common themes were &#39;&#39;Astronaut&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;Pilot&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;Doctor&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;racing car driver&#33;&#39;&#39; etc. No one said production line worker, postman, or bus driver etc. These were all fairly well-to-do positions that require either a high degree of skill, intelligence or both. So your argument that 90% of the population actually &#39;take an interest&#39; in low-skilled jobs is nonsense.What takes place is that over the course of our youths, extenuating circumstances co-erced by the ruling ideaology take force causing us to lower our expectations as opposed to some natural distaste to wanting a more exciting or prestigious role. By in large, the ones who are forced to re-evaluate their options are those born into socio-economic disadvantage while the rest who do follow their childhood dream-job only do so largely thanks to an accident of birth.

Also, please dont fall into the trap of believing that all technocrats or other revolutionaries believe that only scientists, engineers or artists should be commended for acheivements post revolution. It will be the role of sportspeople, television presenters and actors to keep us entertained and raise our morale. In many respects, this will be as important as the workers who provide our utility and infrastructure since if we&#39;re going to sit around being miserable bastards when we&#39;re not working then whats the point? The difference is there will be more openings and opportunites to take part in the entertainment industry since it will open up to a broader range of cultures and tastes than during the existing ideaology.

[RevSkeptic]

I dont know if you ever had the same excercise at school, but when i was 7 or 8 the teacher sat us all round and asked us what we wanted to be. The most common themes were &#39;&#39;Astronaut&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;Pilot&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;Doctor&#33;&#39;&#39; &#39;&#39;racing car driver&#33;&#39;&#39; etc. No one said production line worker, postman, or bus driver etc. These were all fairly well-to-do positions that require either a high degree of skill, intelligence or both. So your argument that 90% of the population actually &#39;take an interest&#39; in low-skilled jobs is nonsense.What takes place is that over the course of our youths, extenuating circumstances co-erced by the ruling ideaology take force causing us to lower our expectations as opposed to some natural distaste to wanting a more exciting or prestigious role. By in large, the ones who are forced to re-evaluate their options are those born into socio-economic disadvantage while the rest who do follow their childhood dream-job only do so largely thanks to an accident of birth.

Also, please dont fall into the trap of believing that all technocrats or other revolutionaries believe that only scientists, engineers or artists should be commended for acheivements post revolution. It will be the role of sportspeople, television presenters and actors to keep us entertained and raise our morale. In many respects, this will be as important as the workers who provide our utility and infrastructure since if we&#39;re going to sit around being miserable bastards when we&#39;re not working then whats the point? The difference is there will be more openings and opportunites to take part in the entertainment industry since it will open up to a broader range of cultures and tastes than during the existing ideaology.

I&#39;m not advocating one position over another, but simply pointing out what would most likely happen given what I see happening in the world today and the attitude of the average consumerist and passive people you meet everyday. Perhaps, the only way people can be waken up from their stupor is for them to experience an extremely painful event of their own causing. People through their consumer actions are in fact advocating the very destruction and over consumption of resources that causes them to go to war over those dwindling resources. There&#39;s a reason why oil prices are rising globally and it has nothing to do with greedy petro companies, but the fact that the average person simply isn&#39;t ingenious enough or care enough to advocate the usage of alternative energy sources. A car gas tank filled with ethanol made from agriculture is enough to feed a person for a year, but try convincing the average car enthusiast to switch to electric propulsion to save people from starving, but then again most of the starving are most likely selfish, unimaginative idiots themselves.

Humans are funny that way in which only the noblest people are found amidst tremendous suffering and destruction. The many great minds of the European enlightenment only came after massive suffering and intentional ignorance inflicted by the church. It could be that the human race haven&#39;t achieve universal enlightenment due simply to the fact that most haven&#39;t suffered enough.

[synthesis]

&#39;Sure, I&#39;ll get kneecapped if I ever criticise the government, but at least I&#39;ll get to stay in a free hospital&#33;&#39;

Sounds great, that. Sign me up.

Funny how capitalists never seem to criticize the governments that don&#39;t give you free health care but still kneecap you if you criticize them. Apparently state terrorism isn&#39;t even an evil on par with socialism.

[Robert]

governments that don&#39;t give you free health care but still kneecap you if you criticize them

1. Nothing&#39;s free.

2. Don&#39;t generalize.

3. Which government did you have in mind? I&#39;m sure all the capitalists here will criticize any knee-capping government you identify. We like our knees.

[RevSkeptic]

1. Nothing&#39;s free.

Air, water, gravity, sunlight...

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 16, 2007 05:48 am


3. Which government did you have in mind? I&#39;m sure all the capitalists here will criticize any knee-capping government you identify. We like our knees.
His point is why are knee capping states with nationalised health services always first in the capitalist firing line?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 14, 2007 04:28 pm
Because the capitalist system intrinsically demands that some people cannot "succeed." Someone has to be the janitor, someone has to do the shitty stuff - a common criticism of communism. In capitalism, it&#39;s usually performed by the people who had to drop out of high school to support their parents.
This is an extremely important point. If I were to become as intellectually and physically capable as some of the most successful people today, but that normacy changed over time to put me in the same grade as I am now, I would not be capable of changing my status. In other words, the individual attempt at success and productivity is unimportant; it is only relevant insofar as it can be judged better or worse than that of others. Capitalism only judges people so that they can be objectified and compared to others; it does not respect individuality in any sense.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 15, 2007 12:10 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 15, 2007 12:10 pm)
Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)
Oh, my, God&#33; Ulster, don&#39;t be melodramatic. You&#39;re too young to get sick in the first place, and in the second place I just told you we aren&#39;t going to let you die.
[/b]
I&#39;m too young to break a leg? Thats news to me. I&#39;ve read on our own foreign office website that the cost of such an injury would cost approximately £10 000 to have seen to in the USA, and i doubt your authorites would think twice about charging the full fee to a foreigner like me. They would never let immigrants have free treatment en masse, because it would create too great a precedence.


Robert the [email protected]


I can see you in a big red pickup truck with a pair of ostrich cowboy boots and a Stetson hat.
No, thanks, i wouldnt suit brown leather.


Robert the great


We&#39;ll eventually have to deport you. They&#39;ll drag you kicking and screaming onto a plae bound for the UK. The &#39;american dream&#39; is long dead and buried, eh? :rolleyes: [/b]
Since the pound is worth about twice as much as the dollar these days, its the perfect time come over and break a leg.

A couple of misconceptions about American healthcare is permeating through a few of your notes.

It is required by law tro treat anyone who shows up in an Amercian hospital emergency room. Regardless of ability to pay. So this absolutely places a drain on the finances of hospitals because...

Because that law does not distinguish between USA Citizens, legal residents, immigrants, tourists (so break a leg on our dime. though I do do think there is usually some effort to recoup payment through the foreign insurance), and illegal immigrants. So American hospitals, particularly on the Mexican border, but also (in smaller amounts) along the Canadian border, face people who come specifically for emergency medical care, stick the bill to the hospital (which means taxpayer), and amscray home (this includes giving birth, since a person born in the USA is constitutionally an American citizen, which complicates deporation against an illegal immigrant parent).

So yes, hard to believe, but true.

[Lynx]

Treating people who are unable to pay does not make for a private health care system, it makes for a socialized one. When I read about hospitals padding the invoices of insured patients in order to recoup losses, that only adds to the fraud.

The US already has de facto universal health care. Admit it&#33;

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 am
Treating people who are unable to pay does not make for a private health care system, it makes for a socialized one. When I read about hospitals padding the invoices of insured patients in order to recoup losses, that only adds to the fraud.

The US already has de facto universal health care. Admit it&#33;
Bullshit. Universal health care means that I can go get a visit for chronic pain without insurance. I have to have insurance before the hospital wil admit me. THEREFORE, there is no de facto universal healthcare, but de jure privatized, exclusory healthcare.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:27 pm
Bullshit. Universal health care means that I can go get a visit for chronic pain without insurance. I have to have insurance before the hospital wil admit me. THEREFORE, there is no de facto universal healthcare, but de jure privatized, exclusory healthcare.
I am equating cost with the type of system in place. Americans are paying for universal health care, they may as well enjoy universal health care. Anything less is a rip-off. I&#39;m making an appeal to their selfishness, as nothing else seems to work.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 08, 2007 03:19 pm
We are moving inexorably toward guaranteed access to health care for all. Health is good. Without it we cannot work, play, invent, or reproduce.

In my country, however, there are several obstacles to good health, and all the doctors, insurance cards, and medicines in the world can&#39;t offset them. Here are a few:

sedentary jobs

junk food

obesity

lack of exercise

bad diet

dangerous sports

fast cars

I know, these overlap and some are different ways of saying the same thing. The problem as I see it is that the people are currently free to sit on their couches with me, watch that shiny new (and expensive) HD television over at Ulster&#39;s house, wrestle bears like Agora in Alaska, race Ferraris like Pusher, get fat like ... well, you know who you are ... and eat fried fish and greasy chips in Ireland with Connolly. Dragon is the only one who eats right, but I&#39;ll bet even he didn&#39;t do his pushups this morning.

My question is this: since we are going to guarantee health care for all, what if any reciprocal responsibility comes with this right? May I eat myself to near death and then demand a state-paid bypass operation? May I smoke filterless "Comrades" and rightfully demand chemotherapy when I get the Big C? May I eschew oranges and demand free meds when I develop rickets and scurvy?

I say no. The State should take care of us only if we take care of ourselves. I know this is "mean spirited," but where am I wrong? Seems to me the only way to fix this is with more government intervention, because people left alone are going to smoke and drink to excess, and no one likes Brussels Sprouts except me and the Belgians.
if you whant to die becouse you eat lot of food that is your choice