What the fuck is WRONG with you people?

by JimK

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/16/09 at 11:07 AM from

HAS IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ANY OF YOU PEOPLE THAT THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM IS SIMPLY A TERRIBLE PIECE LEGISLATION?

RACIST!

/sarc off.

Posted by on 08/16/09 at 12:38 PM from

I’m automatically a racist?

My wife is Asian, so that’s out…

I also hate the poor

Since I’ve been poor, I don’t think so…

obviously a right-wing conservative hypocritical Christian

Libertarian atheist....

and rich?

I’ve met the rich, they have a lot more money than me…

Posted by on 08/16/09 at 03:59 PM from

I’m automatically a racist?
My wife is Asian, so that’s out…

Come on SO haven’t you ever read any Andrea Dworkinish feminist seperatist rantings? 

You are exploiting your Asian wife just like the Brtish exploited India.  Our partiarchy is too engrained for women to actually give consent to marrage, the pressure of the racist patriarchy meant that your wife had no choice but to marry you because of the programming that racist sexist white men have dumped into all womyn’s brain.  The only womyn who have escaped this are man hating lesbians.  The only minorities who have escaped this are those the recognize the oppression.

Posted by on 08/16/09 at 05:42 PM from

Come on SO haven’t you ever read any Andrea Dworkinish feminist seperatist rantings?

Of course, but you can’t take the hysterical ramblings of a deluded psychotic as anything other than proof of mental illness.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 03:26 AM from

So if I don’t support health care “reform,” I’m automatically a racist?

I may have missed it cos I’m over here, but where has this been happening? Cos they need a cockpunch.

However, I recognize the need for some sort of overhaul to the way health care is provided in this country.  And so, I want a good long time to hash out EVERY GOD-DAMNED FUCKING DETAIL before anything is signed into law.

Amen.

But as much as people need to stop thinking that you’re a racist because you oppose universal healthcare - you guys need to stop assuming we’re communists becasue we do want universal healthcare.

My point being, lets all talk about the actual issue, rather than imagining up ridiculous motives for the other sides opinions.

Look - it is my guess that you’re going to get some sort of change in the way healthcare is run. If the debate gets stuck on “You’re a racist poopy head - No you’re a communist poopyhead” then the actual legislation will never be discussed in detail.And then who knows what you’ll end up with?

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/17/09 at 06:10 AM from

But as much as people need to stop thinking that you’re a racist because you oppose universal healthcare - you guys need to stop assuming we’re communists becasue we do want universal healthcare.

I think that you are missing the point britishcress. People that want bigger government, especially when that government is expected to provide them with any kind of social or welfare program, are by definition collectivists. Those that say government is the only entity they can trust, are doubly so. There is no alternative there. We are not being mean or duplicitous when we point that out. And the politicians agitating for this stuff to happen are not doing it because they care for the people for sure. This is about drastically increasing their power and the cash flow to government – 1/5th of our economy right now, and double that in a decade or so – while getting near absolute control over people’s lives. Arguing otherwise shows a lack of grounding in reality that is staggeringly frightening.

Most conservatives want changes to healthcare, too. But we want changes that will actually address the issues and fix things, not just put government in charge of it while not just keeping all the underlying problems intact, but exacerbating them. The day that these people in government offer plans that include drastic tort reforms to limit the legal profession’s healthcare cash cow – put the ambulance chasers out to pasture by forcing them to pay for both sides when they file frivolous law suits and drastically limit their ability to collect awarded moneys – and actually remove the meddling hand of government and reverse many of the mandates that have forced coverage of all manner of crazy but horrendously costly procedures targeted at fringe groups, is when they will get my support. Put everyone on HSAs. I would even be willing to contemplate a mandated catastrophic policy requirement that would cover personal medical expenses over $20K a year. Even if part of that had to be public.

But I will never, ever, just lay down and let them pass universal healthcare. I have experienced it first hand, and I am convinced that there is no way to keep government in check once they have that power or prevent the reduction of quality and increase in wait times that government will have to institute to control costs (when people feel that since it is free anyway, they can go to the doctor for every sniff or cough). And I certainly do not need an invasive government taking away more of my freedoms, even if they claim they are doing it to improve my health (which is plain bullsh*t anyway).

Just say no to universal healthcare.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 06:47 AM from

People that want bigger government, especially when that government is expected to provide them with any kind of social or welfare program, are by definition collectivists.

My point being that there are degrees of it. No doubt you would be fine with the collectivist model for the Military, or for Law Enforcement. Just because someone thinks that the collectivist model is good for healthcare doesn’t mean that they also want to nationalise everything.

It’s like me pointing out that because you don’t want a big government, ergo, you must want as small a government as possible – ergo you are an anarchist.

I would even be willing to contemplate a mandated catastrophic policy requirement that would cover personal medical expenses over $20K a year. Even if part of that had to be public.

There you go. You are a collectivist by your own argument. See how silly it is to break everything down into good guys versus bad guys? JimK isn’t a racist for opposing UH, and I’m not a communist for supporting (the concept of) UH.

And I certainly do not need an invasive government taking away more of my freedoms, even if they claim they are doing it to improve my health

Absolutely fair cop guv.

(when people feel that since it is free anyway, they can go to the doctor for every sniff or cough).

1.  Isn’t true in my experience to be honest.
2.  So what? Isn’t it better that people get more health advice? (supposing it can be paid for of course)

Just for info – the way it works in my district, is that you have the Hospital you can just turn up at for a broken leg or whatever. Then you have your GP who you can book an appointment for checkups or whatnot, and then you have ‘walk in centres’ for if you just want to have a sniffle checked out. Honestly, I’d probably go less if I had to pay every time, but I don’t waste my time at the doctors for fun whenever I have a sniffle.

By the way - I do agree with you about your HSA idea. I’d possibly make the threshold a bit lower, or maybe link it to tax breaks or something a bit more progressive, but I think its a good one.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/17/09 at 07:24 AM from

My point being that there are degrees of it. No doubt you would be fine with the collectivist model for the Military, or for Law Enforcement.

Not this old tired attempt to equate the military or police, which in a modern representative republic like the US are supposed to serve the people and not the government, with socialism again? Just because the military and police are direct apparatchiks of collectivist government, often used by said governments to hold the people in line if not outright brutalize and kill them, does not make our military and police socialist or collectivist models. If you want to use collectivist models, stick to those that are: Social Security, Welfare, and unemployment benefits come to mind.

Just because someone thinks that the collectivist model is good for healthcare doesn’t mean that they also want to nationalise everything.

The argument can be made that insurance is based on a collectivist model since it mitigates risk by spreading it across all the participants. Those that participate have a clear contract for services and a cost for those services, though. The difference is that participation is voluntary, and that allows for the need of both efficiency and quality service, if that insurance wants to survive. A public system doesn’t care for either, but especially so if there are no other real options. And having to be rich or politically connected to qualify for better care kind of really isn’t that great of an option all things considered.

1.  Isn’t true in my experience to be honest.

My brother, married to a Dutch girl and practicing in the Netherlands – which has one of those collectivist systems – would disagree vehemently with you. In fact he goes even further to point out that the people that already have some of the most lax vacation laws – 8 weeks off a year – often fake injuries so they can get even more paid time off. Now granted this can happened even when there is a non public system, but he points out that the government is not just ineffective but pathetic at fighting it, while the private insurance companies do a much better job of it.

2.  So what? Isn’t it better that people get more health advice? (supposing it can be paid for of course)

What would be better is a system that would put some kind of financial stake or cost on the owner so that he or she was better inclined to do what was best for themselves. Like an HAS. Of course such programs if widely implemented would drastically slow down the increase in cost growth in healthcare and not lead to that crisis moment that would require government to step in and take it all over, which is why some politicians -here is a hint: it is the same ones that want the public system – oppose it like it was some kind of terminal cancer.

Just for info – the way it works in my district, is that you have the Hospital you can just turn up at for a broken leg or whatever.

It is the same here. Insured or not no ER can deny care.

Then you have your GP who you can book an appointment for checkups or whatnot,

I can book same day appointments with my GP, without exceptions.

and then you have ‘walk in centres’ for if you just want to have a sniffle checked out.

I hear we are getting some of these here in the US too.

Honestly, I’d probably go less if I had to pay every time, but I don’t waste my time at the doctors for fun whenever I have a sniffle.

You are an exception I think then britishcress, but even you admit that payment would alter your behavior.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/17/09 at 07:41 AM from

By the way - I do agree with you about your HSA idea. I’d possibly make the threshold a bit lower, or maybe link it to tax breaks or something a bit more progressive, but I think its a good one.

I decided to respond to this in a separate post. I think you are confounding the catastrophic healthcare coverage with an HSA (Health Savings Account) britishcress. An HSA is a special type of insurance plan with a high special kind of deductible where the owner can contribute an annually stipulated maximum, based on their personal situation – single or family – as a pre-tax deduction (lowers your income for tax purposes), to an account. They can then take out money to pay their out of pocket expenses, and that money can accumulate, even if unused, for as long as they have such a plan indefinitely. The high deductible is referred to as a donut hole. That is because the plan covers a specific initial annual amount fully, which varies based again on your status, and anything past that donut with a small co-pay. In my case where I insure my entire family, the first $1000 is covered, I pay out of pocket for the donut which is the next $2500, and the plan pays 95% of anything after that no matter how much it costs. I can contribute close to $6K a year to it pre-tax which helps in my bracket. I have not used any of that cash, paying out of pocket because I can afford it, and have literally accumulated real hefty sum over the last 5 or so years.

Did I mention the plan costs me 1/3 of a traditional plan’s price? It is portable too, which really rocks. If there was some kind of catastrophic insurance option to cover the real big stuff I was told by a friend that was in the actuarial business that such plans HSA could be given out for less than $25-200 a month in most cases (with another $10-75) a month for the catastrophic insurance. My costs for this plan right now are somewhere in the middle of those numbers. And the high end numbers would cover the old and those with nasty pre-existing conditions. Government is the main reason these plans are not all over the place, because it would destroy the healthcare crisis myth and the quest for the single payer system.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 08:42 AM from

Sorry guys, this is turning into the Alex and Cress show here… - don’t worry I’m off soon, and you can get back to regular programming….

Not this old tired attempt to equate the military or police, which in a modern representative republic like the US are supposed to serve the people and not the government, with socialism again?

My point being that in the scale of anarchism to socialist utopia, you have the government controlling nothing, along the scale to the government controlling everything. Now you are fine with the Government stealing your tax dollars for military spending, but not with them stealing your tax dollars for healthcare spending. Some liberals might be okay with the government stealing tax for nationalising transport, some libertarians think they shouldn’t be involved in anything.

But basically, the argument is what spheres of life do you allow the government into? Just because someone thinks that healthcare is okay, doesn’t mean they also want manufacturing (slippery slope argument taken, of course)

You are an exception I think then britishcress, but even you admit that payment would alter your behavior.

I find it odd that you think people would go to the doctor just for fun though. I can tell you hand on heart that going to the doctor is only something you do if you really really have to. I can’t stress this enough – going to the doctors is not a ‘fun’ experience. Maybe US doctors are different?

I’m not sure how universal healthcare means that more people will take sickies though?

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 09:49 AM from

1.  Isn’t true in my experience to be honest.
2.  So what? Isn’t it better that people get more health advice?

Studies have shown that 1) it is true, at least in the US.  And 2) this floods the system with requests for non-needed health care which consume resources needed elsewhere.

The problem with something that is “free” is that it no longer has a natural limiter on its use, which then destroys the needed checks and balances for it to run efficiently.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 09:50 AM from

JimK isn’t a racist for opposing UH, and I’m not a communist for supporting (the concept of) UH.

Both the British and Canadian Health ministers have said publicly that the Health Care system is corrupt and falling apart. In fact, both of these country’s are a creating privatized systems just like ours. So, while some twits here defend the health care of these 2 counties, they in fact are changing to our model.

Health care does need TORT reform. Then we can make it more affordable for all.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 09:56 AM from

is that you have the Hospital you can just turn up at for a broken leg or whatever.

As pointed out previously, if you show up at a hospital in need of care, you will get it.  Billing will be taken care of AFTER you get treated.  Not once have I ever been asked to prove ability to pay at the emergency room, and I’ve been to private hospitals (which I prefer) to ones run by the city or county (generally inferior care).

Then you have your GP who you can book an appointment for checkups or whatnot, and then you have ‘walk in centres’ for if you just want to have a sniffle checked out.

Around here we call that a “doc in a box”, and have been around for about 20 years or so.  One of my employers used them in place of hospitals for most insurance needs as it was cheaper.  Worked out fairly well, except when you actually needed a hospital and they wanted you to one of these places first for evaluation.

Honestly, I’d probably go less if I had to pay every time, but I don’t waste my time at the doctors for fun whenever I have a sniffle.

Just because you have a good work ethic is no reason to assume that others do.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/17/09 at 10:25 AM from

Now you are fine with the Government stealing your tax dollars for military spending, but not with them stealing your tax dollars for healthcare spending.

Considering this is one of the few things the constitution, from the beginning mind you, specifically gives the government to do, britishcress, I have never had a problem with it. Healthcare is not in the constitution, not mandatory, and something I am, and most people are, quit capable of providing for myself. I do not demand the government provide me with food, drink, and shelter, and for most of us those things are even more critical than healthcare.

In fact, I wish government spent even more on the military. Best investment and return for the tax payer’s dollars ever. That money goes to pay for stuff that can be used to defend us and our interests on the one hand, and then also pays some very smart and capable people working in the defense industries on technology that sooner or later helps everyone commercially too, and which I should remind you because of the nature of their high skill set and well paying jobs, pay some of the highest taxes in return. I seriously suspect that the left’s hatred of military expenditures is for the simple reason that it rewards highly motivated, hard working, and patriotic people – whom practically always value self sufficiency over handouts - for their efforts, anyway.

But basically, the argument is what spheres of life do you allow the government into? Just because someone thinks that healthcare is okay, doesn’t mean they also want manufacturing (slippery slope argument taken, of course)

That’s simple for me. What the constitution tells it that it is allowed to do. Do not get me wrong. I believe there are clear roles for government. I even support some programs that are clearly socialism (unemployment compensation), and could be made to support others if they were changed such that their primary function was not to create a permanent underclass beholden to politicians for their meager handouts (social security). I just have a huge problem with stuff that is set up to provide politicians, and then politicians of one party only, with a perpetual job at my expense.

I find it odd that you think people would go to the doctor just for fun though.

It has been know for a while – because of collected statistics – that when people don’t feel there is a direct cost associated with something, that they will use said something more. Indubitably some will do it for fun. But most others will just do it just because it is available and there is no detracting factor from using it more often. Best example? A teenage girl with a cell phone.

I can tell you hand on heart that going to the doctor is only something you do if you really really have to.

I can tell you, also hand on heart, that if it is for free, you are a lot more inclined to feel you have to for some things you might have passed on if you had to pay for it.

I can’t stress this enough – going to the doctors is not a ‘fun’ experience. Maybe US doctors are different?

We don’t have to wait weeks to see our GP when we are sick (or think we are sick). You can get the appointment same day. Paranoia or hypochondria can drive people to their doctor for the smallest things. My wife of course thinks if she doesn’t go to the doctor that she is fine, but that women married me and has stayed with me for 20 years now, and that should speak volumes about her sanity. She is destined for heaven. Me I am going to hell. All the fun people are supposedly going there I am told..

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 11:30 AM from

Now you are fine with the Government stealing your tax dollars for military spending, but not with them stealing your tax dollars for healthcare spending.

Actually, there are a lot of people that are NOT ok with the government running the military as it has been shown to be extremely inefficient and careless with money.  Others don’t want a military at all (sort of like Canada).

Finally, the average individual will most likely not have to personally experience the military outside of movies and television shows unless they enlist.  However, we all have to use medical services in our life, leading to a much more personal impact and involvement.

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 12:51 PM from

Now you are fine with the Government stealing your tax dollars for military spending, but not with them stealing your tax dollars for healthcare spending.

This usual left-wing criticism falls apart with two facts:

The entitlement portion of the federal budget DWARFS the military spending, particularly if HC is included.

2) The military part of the budget is actually allowed by/directly IN the constitution.

Posted by HARLEY on 08/17/09 at 06:10 PM from

I oppose this plan on every conceivable facet, but that’s not the point I’m making here.  My point is this: rushing any bill this large through the legislative process is, in my mind, bordering on fucking treason. For example, I like guns and I think most adults should own one. However, if some Senator proposed a 1500 page bill that intended to nationalize the gun manufacturing industry and the retail chain, then send guns to each and every adult in America I WOULD OPPOSE IT.

Jim, i had a interesting conversation over the weekend with some friends over a few beers.
I the liberals are right, and We DO have a right to health care services and products, paid for by the government, then we most certainly have the right to own any arms, and have them paid for and provided by the government.
then we would have the Right to free newspapers computers, INTERNET connection and high definition TV too.  ...you know free speech and access to media…

Posted by on 08/17/09 at 06:53 PM from

Oh Harley, just don’t even.  I can imagine if my ammo was provided by the government… corrosive primers, powder that burns dirtier than Wolf, casings that do to your extractor what Ike did to Tina.  And they wouldn’t send you enough solvent to fill an airplane vodka bottle.  You just KNOW they wouldn’t.

OH. And THEN they’d start making it so the only ammo you could actually buy for yourself would be Winchester Whitebox and Federal “valu-pack” ammo.

I feel sick.

Posted by HARLEY on 08/17/09 at 07:03 PM from

Like i said..........it was a interesting conversation, that point came up too.
you can always count on the government to fuck it up.
now if they provided just he $$$ for you to purchase such arms.
like a FREEDOM REBATE program..LOL

Posted by on 08/18/09 at 02:45 AM from

SO – I didn’t mean to suggest that Hospitals deny treatment in the US. After some of the more rabid claims of Mooreons I can see how my comments might have been taken that way, but I assure you, I’ve been around here long enough to have seen that fisked out of the water.

My point was that for people who do just have the sniffles, there are special clinics set up. Sounds like your ‘doc in a box’ things are similar.

THE MILITARY THING – you guys are assuming I’m a moonbat. I know military spending is in the constitution. I am not suggesting you don’t spend on the military. NotNeoCon – I wasn’t making a ‘left wing criticism’. I was stating the fact that there are a number of things that the government can redistribute wealth to and control. People just disagree with what things they are. i.e. Military = ok, media = not ok. It is where you fall on the line which is the debate.

I seriously suspect that the left’s hatred of military expenditures is for the simple reason that it rewards highly motivated, hard working, and patriotic people – whom practically always value self sufficiency over handouts - for their efforts, anyway.

To be honest I think it comes down to the fact that leftists think that money would be best spent elsewhere (healthcare for example) – I don’t want to get into actually debating that here, just pointing out that it’s not just because leftists hate patriots.

even support some programs that are clearly socialism (unemployment compensation), and could be made to support others if they were changed such that their primary function was not to create a permanent underclass beholden to politicians for their meager handouts (social security).

My point exactly! There are some things that you think the government should be in charge of, some sort of wealth distribution…. All I am saying is that people are somewhere along the scale from nothing to everything. Not all people on the left think that everything should be government controlled.

And I agree with you that social programs are too good a tool to secure votes though.

that when people don’t feel there is a direct cost associated with something, that they will use said something more

Okay – I’ll concede this one – I haven’t seen any studies or anything, so I guess I’m wrong. I was just speaking from my personal experience. I HATE going to the doctors.

I can tell you, also hand on heart, that if it is for free, you are a lot more inclined to feel you have to for some things you might have passed on if you had to pay for it.

Again, I’ll take your word for it. As I haven’t had to pay for anything, I haven’t ever passed on anything. In fact I don’t think I have ever really been given the option. It’s always been “What do you think I should do doc? Okay, lets do that.”

Incidentally, that isn’t quite true – I had to get a full medical the other day for immigration purposes and it cost me £285!!!

Harley – Totally agree. I don’t think there is a right (in the constitutional sense) to healthcare. I put healthcare in the same bracket as unemployment welfare. Not a right, but a morally nice thing for society to do. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing for a change in the constitution which is a whole other debate, and one that it stupid.

Oh and Dijhili – thanks for your awesome contribution to the debate.

Definitions of idiot on the Web:
• a person of subnormal intelligence

By the way, you spelled ‘you’re’ wrong. And your apostrophe on ‘Country’s’ is incorrect. And you spelled it ‘counties’ in the second to last sentence.

Thanks for playing though.

Posted by InsipiD on 08/18/09 at 03:29 AM from

I don’t think there is a right (in the constitutional sense) to healthcare. I put healthcare in the same bracket as unemployment welfare. Not a right, but a morally nice thing for society to do.

Could you also agree that when the economy is lousy and we already have huge defiicit spending is a bad time for the government to add more “morally nice” spending?

Posted by on 08/18/09 at 03:40 AM from

Could you also agree that when the economy is lousy and we already have huge defiicit spending is a bad time for the government to add more “morally nice” spending?

Yep.

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/18/09 at 06:11 AM from

I wasn’t making a ‘left wing criticism’. I was stating the fact that there are a number of things that the government can redistribute wealth to and control. People just disagree with what things they are. i.e. Military = ok, media = not ok. It is where you fall on the line which is the debate.

Again britishcress, when our constitution – a compact, created by some of the wisest men I could ever imagine to grace the surface of this earth, between the people and the government, which limits what our federal government is allowed to do explicitly by only enumerating what it is allowed to do – allows it, it does not matter if you think it is OK or not. Military spending is constitutionally mandated. Nobody that objects to military spending should be taken seriously unless they can call a constitutional convention and change that basic premise. Hence, I think it is important for me to explicitly point out that the issue we have with your logic is that you should not use constitutionally mandated military spending in any comparison or argument to equate or validate unconstitutional social spending. It is a lose-lose, period.

My point exactly! There are some things that you think the government should be in charge of, some sort of wealth distribution…. All I am saying is that people are somewhere along the scale from nothing to everything. Not all people on the left think that everything should be government controlled.

There is a huge and clear difference between a government run social program which provides some kind of security for people that lose their jobs in though economic times – and which with very few exceptions like a massive economic crisis which necessitates federal dollars, is always run at the state level and OK with the constitution – and one which literally hands 1/5th of the existing economy, projected to grow to 30% of the US GDP in but a decade or so and amounting in the trillions of dollars, over to the politicians in the federal government, britishcress. One of them is borderline constitutional, while the other is the most massive usurpation of power by the political class and the doorway to a totalitarian state. That’s not a sliding scale thing.

Those that are OK with a state run unemployment program, even if it is socialism and ultimately some form of wealth redistribution, have a constitutional basis for being OK with the program. There is nothing of the sort for a federal takeover of the healthcare sector. The scale of what is acceptable should end where the constitution says it should. If the left doesn’t like that, let them change the constitution first.

Harley – Totally agree. I don’t think there is a right (in the constitutional sense) to healthcare. I put healthcare in the same bracket as unemployment welfare. Not a right, but a morally nice thing for society to do. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing for a change in the constitution which is a whole other debate, and one that it stupid.

Read my commentary above why the unemployment program, which is run at the state level, is constitutional, and a federal takeover of healthcare is not. Then you have other arguments against it. Bad economy. Government programs always provide horrible service and are replete with waste. Handing government this large a chunk of the GDP is a recipe for disaster. There are a lot more of these. But the most obvious reason right now to vehemently object to this government takeover of healthcare is that if the intent was really to fix healthcare and bring down costs, as the “used car salesmen” (no insult to used car salesmen intended) are telling us, the current direction is absolutely, categorically, and undeniably going to yield the exact opposite effect.

If these people were at least honest and just admitted the goal was for them to get their hands on a huge chunk of the GDP and give government an unprecedented and unheard of intrusive ability that drastically curtails people’s ability to make their own choices, I think we would have much less of an outcry on my side of the isle. Of course, admitting the intention outright would also kill any chance of them inflicting this disastrous and horrible thing on “We the people”.

Posted by on 08/18/09 at 06:42 AM from

Alex, I think we are going round in circles a little here. My point being Alex that as much as the left need to stop calling the right racists, the right need to stop accusing the left of wanting death camps and a Marxist state. As always the answer lies in the middle.

Actually – I just listened to the podcast of bill Mahers Real Time – which was fascinating. Two Republican Congressmen on there, and they were fantastic. Sensible, funny, and despite a few jibes either way, came across brilliantly. Especially when they talked intelligently about healthcare.

Seriously – put these guys front and centre! If you can swallow Mahers opening bit, it is a really interesting listen.

is always run at the state level

Out of interest – has there ever been any proposal for Universal Healthcare at a state level? Is there some obvious reason against this that I have missed?

Posted by AlexinCT on 08/18/09 at 10:33 AM from

Alex, I think we are going round in circles a little here. My point being Alex that as much as the left need to stop calling the right racists, the right need to stop accusing the left of wanting death camps and a Marxist state. As always the answer lies in the middle.

Most on the left might not want the marxist state nor the death camps britishcress, but the last 100 years of collectivist history shows us that this stuff always leads to a totalitarian and tyrannical state sooner than later. Just because most of the modern west seems to have abandoned the bloody revolution followed by the police states & militarism of early communist or socialist states, does not mean that the road no longer leads there eventually. No form of collectivism, not even the soft collectivism we have today, can survive for long. The Greeks figured that out 3 millennia ago. Sooner or later those that produce will get fed up with getting robbed, and then the state will have to become more and more heavy handed in its approach. Eventually and because those that want more will always be in the majority they will resort to brutality to get their way. The modern & progressive left already accuses those that don’t think like it wants them to of thought crimes – that’s what the accusations of conservatives being racist/sexist/homophobic/greedy is all about – to silence them. Conservatives, well let me rephrase that and say that this conservative, doesn’t call collectivists by that name just to insult them, but because I know from history where their good intentions will eventually lead. That’s why I am not buying your equivocation that the name calling on the left and right is more of the same. Sorry.

Out of interest – has there ever been any proposal for Universal Healthcare at a state level?

Massachusetts has such a program actually, britishcress. Of all the sad facts I can give you, one is that it was pushed for by a republican governor – Mitt Romney – and the second is that despite their best efforts, it is doing real bad. Of course the people that are for the single payer at the government level hated the Massachusetts plan and tried to kill it from the get go. They could not afford for it to work and set an example for other states to follow, which would have killed their hopes of putting such a large part of the US economy in the federal government’s hands. And they certainly could not afford for it to fail, or worse, barely work but be the usual crap government provides, and show that these government run enterprises are terrible ideas.

Is there some obvious reason against this that I have missed?

The short answer is that the people agitating for “healthcare or insurance reform” really are not interested in fixing anything, but in handing the federal government more power and money. Having the states set up their own systems will only create 50 different systems, with the easy bet being on them all eventually breaking down and failing, and thus guarantying that nobody will ever want to see a retry with the federal government in charge. You can roll this kind of crap back at the state level – it is not easy but possible – but it is nearly unheard of at the federal level. Any of the healthcare stuff is secondary to that.