Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:43 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (8 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Definitions of Liberal and Conservative
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 31 of 46 (613979)
04-29-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rahvin
04-29-2011 3:10 PM


Rahvin writes:

Why shouldn't healthcare be in the private sector? Why should it be the government's job to provide healthcare?

The private sector has failed, utterly.

It's a matter of incentives, Tram:

A private health care corporation has very little incentive to provide excellent health care, and a very large incentive to deny care regardless of need. Every time the company must pay out for a claim, that money is a direct subtraction from their profit. A private company has no free-market incentive to provide care for a cancer patient, for an HIV patient, for an MS patient, etc - these individuals can never ever pay in premiums what it will cost to treat them. Under a free-market health care system the incentive is to let these people die.

Public health care disregards income or the amount of money required to treat an illness. Under public health care, cancer patients and HIV patients and MS patients are treated, according to their need. Rather than being answerable to stockholders, the system is answerable to the people it serves in the form of the voting public. The incentive, rather than to make profit, is to efficiently and effectively disperse the allotted funds to provide the maximum level of care to all citizens.

The ethical differences between these two systems are blatantly obvious.

Economically, we have examples of private health care costs in the US and public health care costs everywhere else to compare with. In every example, individuals in the US pay more while receiving less in terms of people covered and problems covered. There could be no more clear evidence that the private system is utterly inferior in every way, ethically, economically, and even in terms of achieving the basic goal of providing health care.

There is no excuse or reason whatsoever to support private health care given the evidence available. NONE. At all.

Afraid of the costs? Public care costs less for everyone in every case everywhere. In teh US it costs something like $800,000 for a heart transplant - in the UK, it's more like $50,000.

Afraid of lowering the quality of service? You can;t get much lower quality than the people who have no coverage at all because of a "pre-existing condition." Even excluding them, the US has worse metrics in terms of longevity, infant mortality, and other relevant statistics than nations with public health care. The stories of long wait times are myths, urgent needs receive urgent care, you won;t wait months for an immediately necessary procedure, and waiting exists in the US too!

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SIMPLE FACTS OF REALITY.

Well, here's the thing though, how can such a health care system be run, without resorting to something that might resemble a Socialist style program, without enough profit to run efficiently run healthcare? Regardless of the style of healthcare, you do need enough money to see to a person's needs, and the health care costs are pretty much through the roof in America at this moment. How can you keep costs down without stepping on people's rights as well?

That is one of the simple facts of reality, is that medicine and healthcare costs money to run.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2011 3:10 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 04-29-2011 9:37 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 04-29-2011 10:04 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2011 11:27 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Son, posted 04-30-2011 12:15 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 46 (613980)
04-29-2011 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:13 PM


Political axes
Here is another look at our political axes using better criteria than left vs. right.

These were developed by Jerry Pournelle:

There are a lot of other attempts to expand the political axes beyond left/right. These might be a more suitable area for discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-29-2011 11:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2011 12:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 46 (613982)
04-29-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:13 PM


Profit = Bad
Well, here's the thing though, how can such a health care system be run, without resorting to something that might resemble a Socialist style program

Who cares if it's labeled Socialist? If it works, it works. Stop being afraid of buzzwords.

without enough profit to run efficiently run healthcare?

Any government program that made a profit would be, by definition, a failure.

Regardless of the style of healthcare, you do need enough money to see to a person's needs, and the health care costs are pretty much through the roof in America at this moment.

They're through the roof because of the private insurance system that's in place right now. As was already mentioned in the post you replied to, the price of treatments in countries with a universal system can be as low as 7% of the price for those same treatments in America!

How can you keep costs down without stepping on people's rights as well?

By implementing a universal health care system, of course.

That is one of the simple facts of reality, is that medicine and healthcare costs money to run.

Of course. So, which system is better at managing these things?

Jon

ABE: This topic is already being discussed in detail over in the How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class? thread, so I probably won't continue derailing this thread. We can head over there if you have more to say on health care.

Edited by Jon, : ABE


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12178
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 34 of 46 (613986)
04-29-2011 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
04-29-2011 2:12 PM


Finally A Decent Reply
I am a bit angry that my post got off topic almost immediately. If I were still an administrator at EvC there would be some heads rolling, lemme tell ya.

Anyway...

Ringo writes:

A liberal believes that healthcare should be universally available to eveybody regardless of their ability to pay.

A conservative believes that healthcare should be universally available to everybody regardless of their ability to pay but those who do have the ability to pay should be allowed to go to the front of the line.

A barking-mad, howl-at-the-moon ultra-conservative believes that healthcare should be in the private sector.

Based on your definition, I suppose that I am more conservative than liberal. I see no problem with paying a toll in order to bypass the masses. Poor folks fly coach.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 2:12 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 11:18 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16241
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 46 (613987)
04-29-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:07 PM


Tram law writes:

Why must it be provided universally?


There are at least two reasons I can think of.

One, human decency. How vile do you have to be to stand by and do nothing while people suffer?

Two, health is a universal benefit to everybody. The healthier your society is as a whole, the more productive you are.

Tram law writes:

Why can't some health care companies be ebtter at providing it than others?


As long as they're skimming profits off the top, they're reducing the amount of money that could be used for actual healthcare.

Tram law writes:

To use a slippery slope, why can't this principle of "things must be universal" be applied to the banks or corporations or other kinds of business and companies?


It can be. In cases where it's for the greater good of society, it should be.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:07 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16241
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 36 of 46 (613988)
04-29-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
04-29-2011 10:43 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
Phat writes:

I see no problem with paying a toll in order to bypass the masses.


Tell me that when a guy with a hangnail slips the doctor a few bucks to get in line in front of you.

Phat writes:

Poor folks fly coach.


In your system, the poor folks don't fly at all.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 10:43 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 11:51 PM ringo has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (613989)
04-29-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:13 PM


Well, here's the thing though, how can such a health care system be run, without resorting to something that might resemble a Socialist style program, without enough profit to run efficiently run healthcare?

We've covered this in another thread, but the short answer is that the system can be run as a monopsony, where private doctors provide care and are paid by a single government-run insurer funded by contributions from everybody.

How can you keep costs down without stepping on people's rights as well?

Monopsony bargaining power, and the refusal to pay for procedures that aren't necessary or effective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 38 of 46 (613992)
04-29-2011 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
04-29-2011 9:37 PM


Re: Political axes
Coyote writes:

There are a lot of other attempts to expand the political axes beyond left/right. These might be a more suitable area for discussion.

Hi Coyote,

Your libertarian flag is flying high, I see.

Not a bad attempt, but I fail to see why we should consider Communism as so very rational. Any system that sounds that good in theory but is demonstrably impossible to implement in the real world seems best left on paper. I would also put Ayn Rand way down on the batshit crazy end of the spectrum, but that's just me. And was it really necessary to use the term "Welfare Liberal?"


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 04-29-2011 9:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12178
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 39 of 46 (613993)
04-29-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
04-29-2011 11:18 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
Perhaps I should clarify my beliefs, if only for my own understanding! I believe that every human deserves basic health care. I also believe that its no crime to be able to pay extra for upgraded service. My insurance at work covers $300.00 for vision benefits. These basically include a checkup and a pair of glasses. They don't cover Lasik.
Thus, if I wanted to have laser surgery, I would have to pay out of pocket for it. Seems fair enough.

Getting back to liberal and conservative, (how did we ever get away from the issue?) I tend to support a liberal base..(universal health care and social security) but I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford. (Why is that even an issue?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 04-29-2011 11:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2011 12:07 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2011 12:12 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 04-30-2011 12:17 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 46 (613994)
04-30-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
04-29-2011 11:51 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford. (Why is that even an issue?)

There are some provinces in Canada where out-of-pocket payment for health care isn't allowed; I think that's wrong, but the pushback you're getting might be Canadians trying to justify their more restrictive system.

Even with a single-payer system I think there's a place for supplemental insurance or even out-of-pocket payment. If there's a problem with rich people cutting the line, then you don't have enough doctors and its time to re-evaluate your immigration laws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 11:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 41 of 46 (613995)
04-30-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
04-29-2011 9:37 PM


Re: Political axes
I too would like to know how Communists and Ayn Rand got to be "rational".

As far as I'm concerned they fail at the first hurdle. To me rationality is the intelligent adaptation of one's means to one's ends. But what Marxists and Randists have in common is that they are doctrinaire about means. A Marxist wants the government to do everything, and a Randist wants the free market to do everything, and the question of whether the results of such policies will be any good is either neglected or at the most assumed as a corollary of the supposed wonderfulness of the ideology.

This strikes me as having all the cold steely rationality of a Pentacostal revival meeting. Held in a vast bowl of custard. By monkeys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 04-29-2011 9:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 42 of 46 (613996)
04-30-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
04-29-2011 11:51 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
Getting back to liberal and conservative, (how did we ever get away from the issue?) I tend to support a liberal base..(universal health care and social security) but I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford. (Why is that even an issue?)

You should probably distinguish between social and economic beliefs. A libertarian would fit in best with liberals on a lot of social issues, but would fit in with conservatives on economic issues. So does that make them liberal conservatives, or conservative liberals?

I think a better word than liberal is "Progressive." Modern-day liberals (progressives) resemble almost nothing reminiscent of classical liberalism.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 11:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16241
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 43 of 46 (613997)
04-30-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
04-29-2011 11:51 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
Phat writes:

I tend to support a liberal base..(universal health care and social security) but I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford.


My original point was that that's about where our Conservative Party stands. Anybody more conservative than that is pretty much unelectable.

Phat writes:

(Why is that even an issue?)


If doctors opt out of the system (like some game show where they grab all the cash they can), that diverts resources that could be used for the greater good.

At the present time, Canadians can go to the U.S. to buy preferred treatment. Doctors can go to the U.S. too if they want to feed their greed.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 11:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tram law, posted 04-30-2011 11:55 AM ringo has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 44 of 46 (614012)
04-30-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
04-30-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
ringo writes:

Phat writes:

I tend to support a liberal base..(universal health care and social security) but I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford.


My original point was that that's about where our Conservative Party stands. Anybody more conservative than that is pretty much unelectable.

Phat writes:

(Why is that even an issue?)


If doctors opt out of the system (like some game show where they grab all the cash they can), that diverts resources that could be used for the greater good.

At the present time, Canadians can go to the U.S. to buy preferred treatment. Doctors can go to the U.S. too if they want to feed their greed.

So the common good is defined by the needs of the masses? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 04-30-2011 12:17 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 04-30-2011 1:17 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1909 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 45 of 46 (614013)
04-30-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:13 PM


There's actually already a thread about healthcare on this site btw:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=530459

To sum it up: the argument for "socialized" healthcare is that it costs less and gets better results than privatized healthcare.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019