Missed the part where he says that his own personal experience should be the basis for the crafting of policy. Kinda just thought he was offering an example that he could personally attest to. Pretty sure, actually.
Perhaps you will explain?
Like Ninja Shuriken Scrabble, it’s all Fun and Games until someone loses an “I”.
it’s when you absolutely, positively have to get legislation passed overnight that you’ll realize the disadvantages of choosing the car with Four Flat Tires because it’s statistically safer.
There are disadvantages to universal free healthcare; I have just come back from physiotherapy for my arm ( I don’t know if you would pay for that in America. Apart from having to pay for the surgery in various different ways of course ) and in the waiting-room of the community medical centre I had to regard the intrusion of a TV on the wall with dreary doctors droning on priggishly about using fewer antibiotics and drinking less etc. etc… Most impertinent.
Still, better than having to pay premiums every year, and I’m sure some Americans would take such tedium in return for getting it all free.
Since you ask, in America, you get endless pharmaceutical advertisements on your very own television in the comfort of your own home.
Yeah, just because we pay through the nose here doesn’t mean that we are not subject to same. My Dr.'s office has a tV in the waiting room, but instead of doctors talking about health issues, we have actors playing doctors trying to sell us drugs.
The waiting room of one of the medical places I go to does indeed have a constant medical station on. The other two have regular TV on, and to tell the truth I’d prefer the medical station, but in one of them the waiting room is large enough that I can usually sit almost get out of earshot.
In the 1960s series The Prisoner, Patrick McGoohan, faced with that situation, had a simple solution:
Despite what the site says, he does succeed in silencing the radio. Unfortunately, they simply replace it. But you have blissful silence until they do.
But only while remaining in the fiefdom. One point I made a long time ago was that back then the growing renaissance cities, with their free men, undermined the old fiefdoms. Serfs could get their freedom by escaping to the growing cities. Reforming health care is like making those free cities to grow.
When I see (before the ACA) the issues of Job lock, the asinine costs of health care plans when trying to start a business on your own. And the high costs that make foreign corporations think twice about opening shop in the USA (meaning, less jobs for people in the USA also); I see those issues as analogous to the servitude of the people in fiefdoms. And IMHO many of the “barons” of today do prefer to not see competition come up that will disrupt their kingdoms. Unfortunately, that results in less dynamic economies and it leads to less freedom.
Modern serfs (even when happy with their job insurance) should realize how limiting is to live under a lord (under no health care reforms) when we do take a wider view of the economy. We do need a government that understands that people do need more actual freedom rather than the hypothetical one that many conservatives are falling for.
And still, making more people having access to care does save lives, perhaps not as much as proponents told us, but even lower estimates point at the realization that lives are at stake and that cannot be dismissed.
Remember, we should choose Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Not Death, less freedom and less happy solutions regarding health care in this case.
[Ed McMahon]
You are correct sir!
[/EM]
No one claimed that GIGO made that assertion so it’s not surprising that you missed something non-existent. He did however seem indignant that his personal anecdotal experience could be so easily dismissed:
(my bold in each of the above)
No one is denying GIGO’s personal experience. It’s simply not controlling when discussing public policy.
How about focusing on the part where I pay for a good or service that he gets?
Any reason you can’t see that comparison point?
When did human civilization begin, in your view? What year?
How does it work that when you pay a private company for health insurance, or when a company pays another private company for health insurance you’re paying for your own health insurance, but when you pay taxes for health insurance you’re paying for other people’s health insurance.
In fact the only way you’re actually paying for your own health care is if you forgo insurance altogether, and pay for everything out of pocket.
The downside of this for the rest of us is that when people show up at the hospital with no cash on hand, the hospital treats them anyway.
I know you personally would be fine with the hospital dumping those bums out in the gutter to bleed to death. Cash up front, or GTFO. But the problem for you is that nobody else is willing to do that, not even your fellow christian conservatives. Not even Donald Trump! OK, you’ve got Rand Paul, so there’s that. But aside from Rand Paul?
So your problem is that you live in a country that doesn’t want to have to step over the corpses of people who didn’t have cash on hand as we’re trying to go to work in the morning. So what’s your solution?
I thought you were focusing on paying for a good or service that he gets that you don’t need for yourself, and that somehow or other, the person asking had brought the problems upon themselves through poor choices like getting addicted to heroin. I do not see how that is the same as the person who’s only way of bringing the need for healthcare upon themselves is that of being alive.
I mean, you are comparing a heroin junky to someone who needs insulin or chemotherapy. It is on you to point out what points of comparison you are actually trying to make.
Can you explain why I should have to pay for fire service, when my house isn’t going to burn down? Why should I pay for police, when my house isn’t getting broken into? Why am I paying for schools, when I don’t even have kids? Why am I paying for a military to go fight wars that I disagree with? Why should I have to pay for the medical needs of returning veterans from those wars, when I was against sending them in the first place?
We all have to pay for things that other people get. The only question I have in such policy matters is whether or not the money spent is effectively dealing with the problem that we are trying to solve. We can debate as to whether or not the healthcare issue is a problem to be solved. We could debate all day over whether the ACA does solve the problems effectively, and I would certainly agree that it is not nearly as effective as it should be.
I do not question over whether or not it is simply bad policy to do anything that involves paying for something from which someone else benefits. If that is the beginning and the end of my fiscal policy, then I just keep all my money, and only spend it on things that benefit me.
IMHO, human civilization began when people started working together towards common goals, and compromising with each other on competing interests, rather than every person using the recourses that they could gather for only the benefit of themselves and their most immediate families.
What year, precisely, I don’t know, but sometime before Ancient Sumer, so by 4000-5500 BCE or so we had some level of civilization.
As people learned to work more closely with each other, and learned to accommodate the needs of those not directly related, civilization flourished, and progress was made not just in social justice, but in the economy as well.
I wonder if he includes children in that. Children who are unfortunate enough to be born to poor parents. “Broken leg? Sucks to be you kid now drag yourself out of here before we call security.”
So, do you feel you freedom is restricted because you have to pay the costs of schooling everyone else’s children? Or the cost of building and maintaining roadways and bridges you don’t use?
Of course it is.
The answer to your question is: yes.
However, I am still in favor of some of those things.
Why? Because I contend that in any question that involves restricting freedom, there’s a balancing analysis. The analysis begins with the default proposition that everyone should bear his own costs, and then assesses whether the specific program overcomes that default and should be publicly funded. In the case of roads and bridges, I agree it does.
So you thought something different, and then couldn’t imagine that some other comparison was in play?
Isn’t that sort of an unfortunate limitation of imagination on your part?
Maybe so – but of course I explictly noted that an analogy doesn’t require that kind of matching.
Yes, I can.
We all have to wear clothes. And eat food. Do you support a common fund where everyone contributes to the fund and then the fund pays for our clothes? How about food? Should we all pitch in to a common food bank and then present vouchers against the food bank for our food?
And yet for the vast majority of that time, there was no common fund for health, food, clothing, housing, education, vocational training, contraception, or sexual assault counseling.
So how can those years have been “civilized,” according to you?
I note that you support dragging unborn children from their mother’s womb and killing them, do you not? I bet you even want me to pay for that, don’t you?
Ooh, I like this! Can we pretend that we’re doing this to women against their will too? That would be entirely consistent with the massive amount of misrepresentation you’re doing here already.
I don’t think so. I just think it was a pretty poor analogy.
But an analogy does require some sort of matching, you are comparing two things together, and noting their similarities and differences in some way, otherwise, what’s the point?
Then why do none of those explanations explain why having a healthy populace is a public good that is worth paying for?
Are you making an analogy to a completely government controlled healthcare system, with no input whatsoever from the private market?
If so, that’s not what we are going for, so your analogy is irrelevant.
If not, then your analogy fails on several points. Some of which are that we do use pooled resources to feed and clothe the poor, both in government and private institutions.
It’s not a matter of where we are, it’s a matter of where we are heading. Of course, in 4000 BCE, they did not have these things, but there were people that were working together, and pooling their resources, in order to improve the lives of themselves and their communities. It is that working together part that creates a civilization, not the technology, or even the results that come from it.
Do you disagree that civilization requires cooperation between its members?
IMHO, if people are working together to improve the lives of the community, that is civilization. If people are hoarding their resourses to be used only by themselves or their immediate family, then that is barbarism.