Health Care bill passed

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hardly irrational, given the oppression and death than so naturally comes with socialism and communism. People have every right to be fearful of such ideas; they have a long bloody history.

Unlike laissez faire capitalism.

[downbeatplumb]

Hardly irrational, given the oppression and death than so naturally comes with socialism and communism. People have every right to be fearful of such ideas; they have a long bloody history.

Unlike laissez faire capitalism.

And remember Britain has many trappings of a socialist country, especially the fantastic NHS, which is using a very expensive drug to keep my mum alive, something that would never be affordable in that capitalist mecca America.

She would have been uninsurable because she had been ill before and is too wealthy for medicare.

So would Adrian advocate the sucking away of my families life long savings for the sake of capitalism.

Capitalism only works where there is enough money around for competition to thrive. When this is not present then vital services die, I'm thinking mainly of rural communities.

[Tiberius]

Hardly irrational, given the oppression and death than so naturally comes with socialism and communism. People have every right to be fearful of such ideas; they have a long bloody history.

Unlike laissez faire capitalism.

Laissez-faire Capitalism has never been instituted. It is a theoretical model that no country has wanted to institute because all governments are innately corrupt and do not want free markets. All governments want control of the economy in some way.

And remember Britain has many trappings of a socialist country, especially the fantastic NHS, which is using a very expensive drug to keep my mum alive, something that would never be affordable in that capitalist mecca America.

The National Health Service is hardly a socialist idea. It is a ideal based on freedoms and government responsibilities. You do not have to be a socialist to support a National Health Service (case in point: me). America is far from a capitalist mecca; they have a freer market than us, but it still isn't completely free.

She would have been uninsurable because she had been ill before and is too wealthy for medicare.

And luckily they have now started to implement national health policies.

So would Adrian advocate the sucking away of my families life long savings for the sake of capitalism.

I have never said that. I have always been a supporter of the NHS, and I continue to be. It is a government responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens. Perhaps the only amendment I would make to policy is to ensure that people with conditions that they have brought upon themselves do not get healthcare support. Such a policy would only increase fairness of the system, and would act as a deterrent to people who engage in activities that are dangerous to their health. If you want to smoke 50 cigarettes a day, fine by the government, but don't expect their support when you get lung cancer.

Capitalism only works where there is enough money around for competition to thrive. When this is not present then vital services die, I'm thinking mainly of rural communities.

Not true. If there isn't enough money to spend on products, business drops, and the good businessman will decrease prices to match the drop. Despite what socialists like to think, rural communities were engaging in capitalism way before the word was invented. Capitalism is the natural process by which we expect to get things.

Person X has a sheep and wants some loaves of bread.
Person Y has loaves of bread and wants a sheep.
*Exchange*

Capitalism.

Of course, since there is no guarantee that Person Y wants the sheep, money was invented to be a standard representation of value. Instead of having long chains of bartering, for instance:

Person W wants a loaf of bread and has a sheep.
Person X has a loaf of bread but wants a piece of timber.
Person Y has a piece of timber but wants a new hacksaw.
Person Z has a hacksaw and wants a sheep.

Person W exchanges with Z, then with Y, and then with X. Of course, there is no guarantee that these exchanges will be there, or that everyone will be happy. Money allows people to do a representative exchange, and has additional benefits (such as savings). If Person W can sell his sheep for £10 and the bread is £3, he has saved £7 in the transaction. Person X can use the £3 to buy some timber, etc, etc.

Money also allows for services to be valued properly (i.e £1 an hour for doing some sweeping), and thus the whole structure for supply/demand and workforce labour is born. Why socialists want to change a system that is both natural and works is beyond me.

[Dotard]

Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism FTW!! Oh wait, except healthcare, that should be socialist. And the police. Oh and the fire brigade. Wait..... education too. Where are you drawing your line on capitalism? Just food? Government responsible to protect the health of citizens you say, food is nessesary for health. Clothing is nessesary also. Where's the line Adrian? When people here advocate a mix of socialism and capitalism I believe you said 'bad idea' or something like that, yet here you are advocating a NHC. Thou confuses.

Perhaps the only amendment I would make to policy is to ensure that people with conditions that they have brought upon themselves do not get healthcare support. Such a policy would only increase fairness of the system, and would act as a deterrent to people who engage in activities that are dangerous to their health. If you want to smoke 50 cigarettes a day, fine by the government, but don't expect their support when you get lung cancer.

Or if you like to sky-dive. Don't expect care if you hit the ground and bust up some bones. Oh and the lady with ostio, she obviously didnt ingest enough calcium in her life, so no care for her as she brought it upon herself. Why 50 cigarettes? What if I smoke 5 a day? Should I be denied care? What if I smoke 1 or 2 a day? How about the web master (Tiberius) who developed carpal in the wrists? Denied care because you sat there typing on the computer thus 'bringing it upon yourself'?

Let's not forget Mr. George, developed a bad back from working hard all his life to make a better life for his family. Brought it upon himself (he could have worked easier and done with less) care denied.

Awwwww...... Joe busted his toe open stubbing it on that damned brick sticking up on his walkway. DENIED care because he knew about that brick for a couple weeks now. He could have worn his steel toed shoes yet choose not to thus "brought it upon himself".

You may think my examples are spurious however they demonstrate that slippery slope you advocate.

How about the local homosexual who contracted aids? How about ANYONE who contracted a STD?

Who is the line draw'er Adrian? You? Me?

[Tiberius]

Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism FTW!! Oh wait, except healthcare, that should be socialist. And the police. Oh and the fire brigade. Wait..... education too. Where are you drawing your line on capitalism? Just food? Government responsible to protect the health of citizens you say, food is nessesary for health. Clothing is nessesary also. Where's the line Adrian? When people here advocate a mix of socialism and capitalism I believe you said 'bad idea' or something like that, yet here you are advocating a NHC. Thou confuses.

It's the difference between how a Libertarian views government and how seemingly everyone else (the statists) view it. Statists, who include all major parties in power, go from a position of government control. Healthcare? The government should control it. Welfare? The government should control it. Libertarians reject those ideas, basing our view of government on what the government should ultimately be responsible for. These responsibilities are summed up by our three ideals "Life, Liberty, Prosperity". That is to say, the government has responsibilities to protect these ideals whilst not interfering with how people want to live their lives.

Protection of life in my view necessitates a National Health Service. Far from the socialist view of such a service, in which government has control, the NHS under Libertarianism would be run like any other private institution. A collection of private charitable groups would act as watchdogs, pointing out wasteful things in the system, cutting costly bureaucracy in favour of efficiency. There is nothing anti-capitalist about having an National Health Service, since the government does not have control over such a service, it only funds it. Additionally, there is nothing to stop private hospitals being set up, private insurance, etc.

The funny thing here is that you take capitalism and socialism to mean more than they actually do. Capitalism and Socialism are both economic systems, not governmental systems. Sure, you can have a "capitalist" or "socialist" government, but that only describes their stance regarding economic control. There is nothing innately socialist or anti-capitalist about a National Health Service, nor any public service. The National Health Service isn't trying to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, spreading the wealth, nor is it trying to lock down the healthcare market. So I stand with what I said before, combining socialism with capitalism is a very bad idea. The two economic systems do not go well together; their underlying principles in stark contrast with each other.

As for the police and fire brigade, yes, I see no reason why these systems should not remain public under the same circumstances. Cut bureaucracy, cut spending, focus on providing a service.

Education I believe should be privatized. Current public education is like batch farming, which is great if you want to produce a lot of the same product. Unfortunately we don't want children to become drones; they are all individuals with different needs and abilities. Only a private system can provide such individualistic services.

Food and clothing are commodities; they are free market products, they should remain on the free market. There is no reason to waste public funds on such things. If someone does not have access to food or clothing, there are private charitable services that can provide them. Indeed, systems like Libertarianism and other anarcho-capitalist systems depend upon private charity (and in that instance, encourage them). We don't believe people are monsters, but we don't believe people are inherently perfect as socialists tend to. There will be decent people who can take the extra money they get from the lower taxes and give to the poor, but that is their choice; it is their money. A system that forces people to give to those they may not wish to give to is unfair.

Or if you like to sky-dive. Don't expect care if you hit the ground and bust up some bones. Oh and the lady with ostio, she obviously didnt ingest enough calcium in her life, so no care for her as she brought it upon herself. Why 50 cigarettes? What if I smoke 5 a day? Should I be denied care? What if I smoke 1 or 2 a day? How about the web master (Tiberius) who developed carpal in the wrists? Denied care because you sat there typing on the computer thus 'bringing it upon yourself'?

Let's not forget Mr. George, developed a bad back from working hard all his life to make a better life for his family. Brought it upon himself (he could have worked easier and done with less) care denied.

Awwwww...... Joe busted his toe open stubbing it on that damned brick sticking up on his walkway. DENIED care because he knew about that brick for a couple weeks now. He could have worn his steel toed shoes yet choose not to thus "brought it upon himself".

You may think my examples are spurious however they demonstrate that slippery slope you advocate.

How about the local homosexual who contracted aids? How about ANYONE who contracted a STD?

Who is the line draw'er Adrian? You? Me?

I never said such a system would be easy to implement, or even if it were possible. As I was typing it in I thought about putting such a disclaimer, but then I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone spots the flaws such a system might have. Well done to you

Yes, there are many instances you could argue would lead to good people getting rejected. There are also many examples you give which are plainly ridiculous. I never advocated a position that rejected people who have work-related injuries, and surely the responsibility there lies with the employer? A balance might be needed; perhaps a blacklist with all possible self-injuries that would not be covered for free.

Regardless, I agree, such an amendment probably makes things less fair to regular people.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes, there are many instances you could argue would lead to good people getting rejected. There are also many examples you give which are plainly ridiculous. I never advocated a position that rejected people who have work-related injuries, and surely the responsibility there lies with the employer? A balance might be needed; perhaps a blacklist with all possible self-injuries that would not be covered for free.


So you woud leave people in agony or unble to cope because of a principle.
I'd rather they got the treament.

Also this is making life style choices for people by cunning means.

Go skiing break your leg no treatment, people wont ski,this is government control by the back door.
And anti-libitarian.

[Tiberius]

So you woud leave people in agony or unble to cope because of a principle.
I'd rather they got the treament.

Also this is making life style choices for people by cunning means.

Go skiing break your leg no treatment, people wont ski,this is government control by the back door.
And anti-libitarian.

Your strawmen are easily defeated: I never advocated any such position. As I said in my previous post, I saw the flaws in my idea as I was typing it. Perhaps you didn't see the end of my post:

"Regardless, I agree, such an amendment probably makes things less fair to regular people."

Please try to read the entirety of my response next time...it saves me having to repeatedly explain things to you.

[Dotard]

Ya, didn't you see? He was 'just testing' us. He knew it was flawed all along.

Ya, right.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have two opinions on this Bill.

1. Well, I assume it's a good thing... free health care - what's the catch? Is there a catch? Hopefully not, it's free health care! And I respect he NHS very much here in Britain.

2. Shame it's coming in as late as 2014!

EvF

[Autumnlicious]

I have two opinions on this Bill.

1. Well, I assume it's a good thing... free health care - what's the catch? Is there a catch? Hopefully not, it's free health care! And I respect he NHS very much here in Britain.

2. Shame it's coming in as late as 2014!

EvF

Catch is that there is no public plan. You are mandated to buy insurance from insurance companies with government tax breaks. Nasty caveat is that premiums are not limited by the bill.