IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Disagree with your "Social Contract"
It's part of what I disagree with.

The main function of government should be to protect the natural borders of the country.

It should also protect and assist in the building of the infrastructure of the country.

It should ensure fair competition in the business infrastructure of the country.

It should protect industry within the country, and ensure fair and equitable trade and negotiations with other countries.

The functions of government should not include providing for my healthcare, social security, or welfare.

That being said, I also believe strongly in charity, that we are responsible for our fellow man, but that those donations should be voluntary, not compulsive. And we should be more than willing to donate.

The problem with our country is that the government is taxing us so heavily that we can no longer donate freely.

If you add up your sales tax, income tax, social security contributions, gas tax, excise tax, and property tax, I think you would that we're probably paying out about 30-40% of our income in taxes. And the government still runs a huge budget deficit.

100 years ago, we did not have an income tax, social security, and socialized health care. All of that occurred in this century.

So, is the government spending our money efficiently? What do you guys think? Do you think they would spend healthcare dollars from larger taxes any more efficently than the market would? I think not.

However, I think socialized medicine is probably inevitable in this country, because medicine has done a wonderful job of pricing itself out of the market. That being said, if we can provide large pools of private insurers for small companies and the poor, then it would be preferable to a large national "single payer" plan.

New actually there was socialized health care 100 years ago
If you research on the spanish flu epidemic of 1918 and NYC you will find a public health infrastructure with docs, nurses etc with better coverage than todays pay as you go infrastructure.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Your title and body do not match
A working public health infrastructure is a very different beast from socialized healthcare. What you describe is that we had a good public health system in 1918. Not socialized healthcare.

The difference is that healthcare involves caring for the sick while public health involves steps to address health-threats to the community. Public health includes things like clean water, making restaurants meet sanitation standards, vaccination programs, public education efforts, etc.

As an example of the difference, the SARS epidemic was solved through public health measures (contact tracing and quarantine). Health care efforts were notably ineffective. In fact from a public health perspective the main reason to provide health care to people with SARS rather than just shooting them is that you're going to get better compliance if you give people hope that they have better odds of surviving if they report their symptoms honestly. (Public health officials are very interested in figuring out what steps will improve public compliance.)

Until Medicare, the USA didn't have any form of socialized healthcare (and now only has it in a poor form). However the US public health system in the USA got started in the 19th century.

Incidentally the arguments for a good public health system are far more compelling than for universal healthcare. For one thing, public health by the nature of the beast cannot be delivered privately. For another, public health is far more cost effective than healthcare and therefore is a justifiable investment.

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
     Background info on issues WRT medical insurance. - (inthane-chan) - (11)
         couple of points I have made before - (boxley)
         Sorry, could not resist - (Arkadiy)
         Have you read "Betrayal of Trust" yet? You should... -NT - (ben_tilly)
         Having worked in several Health/Pharma systems.... - (gdaustin)
         Part II: The Social Contract - (inthane-chan) - (6)
             Also would like to discuss what you call basic healthcare - (boxley) - (1)
                 That's in part III -NT - (inthane-chan)
             Disagree with your "Social Contract" - (gdaustin) - (2)
                 actually there was socialized health care 100 years ago - (boxley) - (1)
                     Your title and body do not match - (ben_tilly)
             Again, you should read "Betrayal of Trust" - (ben_tilly)

Searching for a distant star, heading off to Iscandar!
158 ms