How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Certainly his suit is going to be thrown out because he's not demonstrated that he's somehow been prevented from not listening to them.Again it's this "right to not listen" that I don't understand. I mean it's basically impossible to get children to pay any attention to most adult authority figures; not listening is kind of the prerogative of children, isn't it? So I don't know what is meant by "not listen." (Although Jar said "not hear", and he seemed to think that was an important distinction.) Not obey? There's no law that a child has to obey their parents, and pastors or other religious figures can hardly order anybody about, adult or child.Again I'm utterly confused about what the action here is supposed to be, when Jar refers to children hearing people. It seems to me that hearing is a passive act which occurs automatically, assuming one is capable of it. If I speak at you, no volition on your part is necessary to hear me - just unobstructed, functioning ears. Whether or not you listen, obviously, is the volitional act that determines whether my speech has an effect on you. But children, like all human beings, certainly retain the right not to listen.

And Winnipeg's not in the U.S., as you've been told. Too bad you're not actually interested in presenting your case.I think I gave you a pretty fair opportunity for doing so.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I'm aware, but we're not talking about the United States. I don't see that you've done anything but repeat other people's arguments. The Canada objection, for instance, was addressed two pages ago.

Actually, we could resolve this debate right here. I will fully admit that what you call brainwashing - using coersion to inculcate belief - is wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong. However, as you freely admit, indoctrination without coersion is just teaching, regardless of the content of the indoctrination. Good so far? Where you're getting into trouble is that you're also trying to make a legal argument, and you are unfortunately confused about how the law actually works, so that part of your argument falls apart.Had I hours to do so, I could go back and refute your attempt at a legal argument point by point. But you could make that unnecessary if you simply agree that you have a perfectly valid moral argument, just not a legal one.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven DutchI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

I don't equate "indoctrination" with teaching, I guess. Could you explain what you mean by the term?If you mean just the communication of values (for instance), I'd use a different word but I'd agree that it was neither coercive nor illegal. Communicating racist values could (and has been) be a justification for loss of custody in a custody-specific suit, but on its own it's not likely to result in CPS action, obviously. That's the "racist uncle" level of racism I've been talking about. Clearly CPS isn't going to have the time, ability, or authority to intervene.I wouldn't necessarily say that a parent has a "right" to communicate racist values to their child, but clearly they have the ability to do so. Not much is going to stop them. But they don't have the right to have a racist child - that is, if the child is determined to reject racist views, the parent has no legal right to compel them otherwise. Attempting to do so by coercive means would certainly violate the law, and certainly be a basis for loss of parental custody (as it was in Winnipeg.) I don't know why everybody thinks they have to rush on my account. Take all the time you need!

In the NHS everyone who requires a hip and knee operation will get one, and under normal circumstances hospitals should provide this service within 18 weeks. But this issue of delays has only recently surfaced as part of budget cuts, resulting in doctors and surgeons having to prioritise those who are most in need.
Of course in the US this situation will not arise since not everyone who has a need for a hip or knee operation will have the opportunity to get one. This situation will not be decided by doctors or surgeons but by the insurance companies, either directly by whether the operation is covered by the policy, or indirectly by the patient/customer looking at the affordability of the policy excess or hike in premiums.I also work for the NHS, although for me it is in a hospital microbiology department. From my experience a national health service is more than just patching up an individual when they are ill. At my work, amongst other things, we screen for MRSA and C.difficile carriage for patients admitted to hospital as well as in the community, which are important infection control issues and could affect the outcome of any surgical intervention. The routine testing of patient samples also allows us to track other health issues, like food poisoning outbreaks or STD's or new bacterial resistance patterns.
My point of this is that even if you don't accept that universal health provision isn't a basic human right, you should at least recognise that withholding it from a section of the population means could still affect you. For example, you go to a doctor in the UK with an illness, they take a sample and we can tell you the causative organism and what antibiotics to treat with. The bacteria is eradicated and that's the end of the story. In America an uninsured person walks into the emergency room with an illness, and the doctor gives them some generic broad-spectrum antibiotic and fulfils their contractual obligations. It may not be the best antibiotic for the illness, the illness may not even be bacterial, and the patient may not be able to afford a full course of treatment. The upshot is that the bacteria is not eradicated and may go on to develop novel antibiotic resistances.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

Oh yes, I missed that one. So, here's a story showing how conservative cuts in socialized medicine have caused pain and suffering to patients because they have to wait a long time for the government to supply them with necessary operations.The conclusion our friendly neighborhood conservative wishes to draw from this? That there should be no socialized medicine at all, so that people would have to wait for ever for the government to supply them with necessary operations.When British conservatives cause hunger by taking away half the loaf, American conservative logic decrees that the situation could be remedied by ensuring that we have no bread.

A good, civil message Malcolm, I appreciate it. Everyone who requires — with so many medical procedures, it’s not that simple. What is required is often subjective — what is required for some people may not be required for others. When to go to a doctor, what medical issues/symptoms can be lived with - in the U.S. these are all individual decisions as they should be. I find myself wondering if, in a government run health care system, are there requirements for physical exams? If a small medical issue is found during one of these exams, and the patient doesn’t want it treated, is he forced to have it treated? To save the system from more expense later on? I understand, of course there are advantages to a universal program. I think these people who want it in the U.S. are eventually going to get their wish. I just don’t see them thinking through the disadvantages, and the change over process. Since currently in the U.S. not everyone who needs a hip or knee operation will get one, it provides incentive (especially for those who are uninsured, or poorly insured) to live a healthier lifestyle that helps them avoid that problem. Like eating better, and/or getting some exercise. But it’s still a choice. Under universal health care, why would they worry? The government will take care of them. Unless the government mandates eating better, or getting exercise. That’s not liberty, not what the U.S. is about.There’s going to be a world of problems with a changeover to a universal system in the U.S. that’s going to surprise a lot of people. No matter how gradual it’s implemented, some things are going to happen overnight. Much health coverage in the U.S. is paid for partly, or completely by employers. If insurance companies are eliminated from the process, suddenly employers are going to be freed from this burden. What happens to that money? It’s company’s money, it’s earned by them, and it should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Does everyone expect them to hand it all out in raises to employees? Is the government going to find it justifiable to tax it away from them? Also, insurance companies suddenly lose a major source of income. They still insure automobiles, and houses, and much of this coverage is mandated by law (in the case of automobiles) and mortgage holders (in the case of homes) Will those rates skyrocket, as insurance companies attempt to counter their loss of medical insurance business?In some cases in the U.S., medical coverage is an incentive to be involved in organized work. In my area, school bus drivers are part time (average around 4 hrs work per day) and they get medical insurance through that job. For most of them, it’s a supplement to other work they or their spouse does — without medical insurance, they wouldn’t do it. So there’s no question that filling some jobs is going to be harder if medical insurance is suddenly out of the equation.The U.S. health care system has problems, to be sure. But I don’t think the only solution is to turn it all over to our government, which could very well do a far lousier job of administering it that your country’s government does.

Actually, it is NOT the companies money, it is already part of what the worker is paid. Yes it should get given to the employees but it is NOT a raise, it is already theirs.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You wonder? Why not find out? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-by-judge-to-have-surgery.htmlThe answer is that, just like in the US, courts can order and force medical treatment on individuals who don't desire it if and when the court determines that they lack the capability to make an informed and rational decision.But absent that, it's a crime of assault in the UK to subject someone to unwanted medical procedures, just like it is in the US. Because people don't like injuries, illnesses, or invasive medical interventions even when they're free?In your experience, do insured people act more recklessly? If the money belongs to the company - and, contrary to Jar, I largely agree with you that it's the company's money we're talking about - then the company will decide what to do with it. Maybe they'll feel pressure from their employees, who feel like their compensation is being reduced if the company is no longer paying for health insurance. Maybe they'll feel like they have to increase wages to match, to meet the labor market pressure and avoid losing their valuable employees to other firms. Or maybe they'll keep it, and reap profits from the reduction in labor force costs.Very likely, some combination of both will occur. Market pressure from employees will result in increased monetary compensation to make up for the loss of benefits, and total labor costs for most companies will be reduced since they're no longer on the hook for expensive health benefits.I really don't see it as a conundrum, though. Do you think that companies won't be able to figure out what to do with a windfall generated by lower labor costs? I don't understand how more money in a company's pocket is an "unexpected problem." I think that's a "problem" most companies want to have. Yeah, they're probably going to go the way of ice delivery services and buggy whip manufacturers. That's the free market for you - nobody has a right to be in business forever. Well, right. Why is that a bad thing? If bus driving is such a valuable service then we'll have to pay people a wage that convinces them to do it. That'll be cheaper, in the long run, than paying bus drivers in health coverage. Moving away from benefits-based compensation will save money for everyone. Why? The US government already has plenty of practice administering health services; there are two completely separate Federal single-payer coverage providers already, and a majority of Americans are already on one of those two single-payer systems.Yes, that's right - a majority of Americans already get single-payer health care run by the government. So I don't think the changeover to a "Medicare for all" system would be as big a deal as you portray it. The government already meets the health care needs of the sickest and oldest, since there's no market for insuring people who need expensive care; the people we'd move into the pool - healthy, able-bodied working Americans - are the people who also have the least health care needs.

No. How's that been working out so far? Wouldn't the same degree of moral hazard apply to having private health insurance?But in either case there are other incentives not to be a tub of lard. And even from a medical point of view, there's not much the government or private insurance can do for someone who's really determined to "dig his grave with his teeth". You could ask that of anything that saved a company money, but it's not something one usually worries about. I've not seen you fretting about what would happen if oil prices came down. And expenditure. Only if they've been subsidizing an otherwise uneconomic car-insurance business with profits from health insurance, and presumably they're not stark raving mad and they haven't. People in other nations manage to drag themselves to work with the incentive of actual money. I don't know of any country (perhaps North Korea?) where the government has a monopoly on health care. Is there any reason to suppose that America is uniquely likely to make a mess of what other nations seem to do quite well?You could use this sort of vague anxiety as an argument against doing anything, but it's not a very good argument unless you can justify it.

Perhaps I am mistaken - but isn't that what the Republican Party has been doing?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Who the fuck wants a knee operation no matter who's paying for it? There is no need for a mandate, in fact, such is to be discouraged. Incentives and education would do the trick just finealong with 'food' industry regulations, as they have done in other countries. An alternative would be to pay people fairly for the work they do, and teach people how to live within their means and make this more of a possibility.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Do you think that private insurance companies do not spend any money on administrative costs? Also, the government will not be pulling money out as profit, so there is a cost saver right there. After there is a single payer system the next step would be in decreasing cost at hospitals. This is more easily done if everyone can collectively bargain as a single population instead of piecemeal like it is now. We should also look at government run hospitals like the VA system. Nothing is stopping these type of regulations right now, and there is no one stopping advocacy of healthier diets. I really don't see what this has to do with anything. Student loans have to do with tuition outpacing the cost of living to the point that middle class families can no longer "pay as they go". I want to fix modern America, not the America from the 1700's. If you want to live in the America from 1700 I would suggest building a time machine. I am not saying it should either. Other countries spend around the same amount as we do per capita, and yet they are able to provide health care for everyone while we only do it for the poor and old. Obviously, we are spending too much in other areas, namely the defense budget. So we shouldn't even try? Sorry, but a defeatist attitude is a poor excuse. The US has a lower lifetime expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, and overall poorer healthcare than countries with government run health care. All the while, we are spending twice the money for inferior healthcare. It is very similar to healthcare in other countries. Taxes are used to fund the bulk of the cost while users are expected to fund a small percentage of the total cost. To use my own city as an example, a day pass on the bus is 2 bucks. If all tax funding were pulled from the system that same pass would need to be 9 to 10 dollars. We use tax money to build and maintain public roads that are open for everyone to use. Why can't we do the same for healthcare? Curing disease. If a more expensive procedure saves more lives then the more expensive procedure is recommended. How many middle class families could provide for a child with a chronic condition without insurance, or afford a $250,000 doctor bill if the breadwinner has a heart attack or gets cancer?

Well of course medical treatment will vary depending on the patient and their symptoms and what is 'required' will be determined by the examining doctor. I simply cited knee and hip operations as that was the example in the article.
As others have already pointed out, nothing is compulsory. You can still when or if you go to a doctor if you are feeling unwell, and choose whether to follow the advise the doctor gives. However I would say that the general public is not qualified to determine if symptoms they are experiencing can be lived with. It could be the start of something more serious, even potentially life-threatening, so the sooner you choose to see the doctor the better the outcome. Of course over here doctor visits are free. I did not realise that you even have to pay to just see the doctor in the US system. Illness is not something you can control and even living a healthier lifestyle provides no guarantees. To go back to the example of hip operations, that is the result of gradual wear and tear on the joint, so is generally age related but can also be exacerbated by a job which is physically demanding. The risk of heart disease can be increased by stress. Other diseases like many cancers can happen spontaneously. A person may have unknown genetic predispositions to certain diseases, or have a child with a genetic disorder like cystic fibrosis requiring long term care. The point is illness is not always a choice.As a non-American I admit I don't fully comprehend the 'American Dream' but it seems to be the idea that if you work hard you can improve your lot in life. But this doesn't appear to be what happens. You work harder to not fall behind, so your busy running on the spot until a health issue comes along to trip you up. I realise a public health service is open to knee-jerk accusations of freeloading or abusing the system (not so sure about unnecessary elective surgery ) but really it's a safety net for when things go wrong. There are a huge number of services involved in a national health service, and they do not all have to come under a public healthcare system at one time. For example you already have Medicare and Medicaid services which could be expanded. As less services are required to be covered by the insurance companies, the premiums will go down, including for employers. With more money the employers can invest it in the business, providing more jobs. This will in turn drive up salaries as businesses compete for staff, and the increase in salaries will be offset by an increase in taxes as more services are added. Anyway that's how I see it.