how-to block ads
|
Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23
 ·Embarq
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
|  reply to ronpin
Re: Healthcare and socialism?
said by ronpin  :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). What a gross distortion of what Ron Paul and libertarians, in general, stand for; only the staunchest objectivist would do something as you describe. Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). Milton Friedman talked about how back in the 20's and 30's the poor and upper class could get excellent healthcare, but it was the middle-class who struggled with it, a bit.
It's one thing to say "Ugh, those libertarians; they believe in deregulation, low taxes, and are somehow anti-war", but to make a statement like you just did is horrendously inaccurate. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by Fox McCloud :Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out If you want to play the "way it used to be" game, we could go back to when health care was lightly regulated. Your neighbor could set a fractured arm, or deliver a baby if you wanted to save money on a doctor visit.
The root cause isn't "public funding." It's that we didn't want third-world health care conditions. To achieve that goal we gave the medical association (which became the medical establishment) control over its industry, to establish standards and use Public Law to enforce those standards "in the public interest."
It was the loss of those "free market" choices (for the social good of a rising standard of living) which led to increased calls for "public funding."
This is no different than other social evolution, such as public water, sewer, roads, etc. Society is always looking to improve standards -- and recognizing that a social responsibility goes with those improved (artificial, not "market-based" standards).
That's where Ron Paul breaks down. IMO, Ron Paul pseudo-libertarians are a fraud. They like to use the big-L Libertarian rhetoric to sound like their positions are "principled" (unlike everyone else). But, they quickly dodge all the disconnects in big-L rhetoric by explaining "I'm not a big-L Libertarian...."
The result is a mish-mash of incomprehensible positions based upon sound bites. Selectively focusing on things like how we should "return to a time before public funding" -- while ignoring what public funding was a response to. (I.e., they don't want to return to a time before public standards because, "hey! I'm not a Big-L Libertarian!!!!").
Mark | |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud :said by ronpin :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). ...Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). ...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?")
I was raised with no healthcare -- through no fault of my own -- living in an obvious "shack" right across the street from a large church! -- during the "good 'ol days" of racism, sexism and "manifest destiny" No -- libertarians are only worse than repugs because they attempt to rationalize their convenient, selfish inhumanity. At least Rush Limbaugh is too dumb to actually rationalize anything (demonize - yes)
If only selfish people were not inherently ignorant -- they'd be the very first to embrace expanding Medicare -- to save the money that now leaks-out between the cracks in our system. GM, Walmart and most other Fortune 500 companies now see what a competitive disadvantage we now suffer by foisting-off the healthcare of sentient beings to the randomness of the "business cycle". It's time to grow-up.
--
Remember the future. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by ronpin :...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?") That gets back to my observation about Ron Paul pseudo-Libertarians. A Big-L Libertarian would say it's not government's job to coerce anyone to be someone else's keeper.
Ron Paul pseudo-Ls intimate suggest that principle, but won't go that far because, to be consistent we'd have to question why government sets social standards (and resulting market prices) high (so we don't have third-world medicine). They want to suggest Big L's "non-coercion principle," but at the same time distance themselves from what that really means because Big L's are largely irrelevant due to their unrealistic/unpopular principles.
That's what I don't like about he modern health-care debate. It's driven by ideologues who simply parrot polar positions rather than think about the issues for themselves. It's just slogans about "wealth transfer." Or, the other side not acknowleging that reform will truly create problems for many -- *but, that won't be a precedent since we create problems for many today*.
Mark | |
-
|
