said by viperlmw :

I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.

I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else?

said by jester121 :

Thank you for your service to our country sir.

I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care.

said by knightmb :

often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China?

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark

said by viperlmw :

I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.

I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else?

said by Tzale :

Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...

said by KrK :

And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

said by KrK :

I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it.

I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available.

said by Tzale :

I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...

said by amigo_boy :

Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid.

I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in.

I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal."

It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits.

Mark

said by Tzale :

Our country is "free"

said by Tzale :

There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states.

said by amigo_boy :

Clearly it's not "free" for those people who can't afford the products and services of a *highly* socialized health care system that denies them lessor choices.

That's the thing I don't see opponents of greater socialization addressing.

IMO that's the problem with people who selectively use "small government" arguments. They *like* most of the things that violate the very same principles they complain "one more thing will violate."

They like how society sets higher standards on health care than a "free market" would produce. (It alleviates them of their responsibility and the "caveat emptor" that goes with it.). We don't hear them calling for a truly free market system. (Even you argued against it on grounds of "public safety," a collective argument based upon the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.).

They like the SEC and banking regulations, and food quality laws. Each a social moderation which impacted someone negatively by eliminating willing buyers and sellers.

So, what's really being said is: Those who feel socialized health care (make no doubt, it already is socialized) should be distributed more equitably (to the entire society that has moderated that market) should instead strive for a minimal government that doesn't exist, and would be hugely disliked if it did.

Mark

said by Tzale :

I believe that society NEEDS some government to maintain a standard of living. The hard thing is finding the line where the needs of society are not outweighed by an oppressive government.

said by Tzale :

I believe in state's rights!

said by amigo_boy :

I agree. But, I'm not the one tossing chilling buzzwords (like "socialism") at those who think "government can maintain a standard of living" different than my notion of it. If I were someone excluded from health care in the interest of what you deem to be "a necessary standard of living" I would feel oppressed by government.

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?

BTW: I'm not advocating anarchy or "no licensing." I'm just pointing out that the unjustified use of absolutist rhetoric isn't helpful at understanding the issues. It's a convenient way of defining a world that simply doesn't exist.

Again, you're using absolutist rhetoric to (selectively) impose a standard that doesn't exist. States' rights haven't existed since the Civil War. States don't have the right to maintain slavery. They even don't have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union. You (like billions of others) probably believe *those* shouldn't be states' rights. So, we're talking about a matter of degrees. Not an absolute principle.

Mark