> Your comment (and its upmods) is why, my friend, even the most educated and interesting Americans sound like incoherent cavemen...
Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point:
> ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least...
Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo.
With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures.
> Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food?
They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time.
In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics.
> You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious.
1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on.
2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them.
3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society.
> It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric.
--
My points:
1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession.
2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along?
That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.
I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society
That's the main disagreement right there: in what is the role of a government and what is a function of any modern society. If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion. It's like with evolution vs intelligent design: you quickly hit a wall which can't be cracked by any arguments from any side due to the fundamental difference in beliefs.
And just to answer your question, yes - I would have you arrested. Refusing to "play along" and letting your fellow citizens die is a borderline murder.
Mate, I was going to write a reply, but I don't think you want a discussion. Look at this:
> If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion.
Your conclusion is that automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen. You say that there's no intelligent discussion if I don't accept that, and compare not believing it to believing in creationism.
I don't accept that medicine provided by others under threat of force is a fundamental right. I have well thought positions on this.
> And just to answer your question, yes - I would have you arrested.
I do respect that. I mean it scares the hell out of me, but at least you'll say it. Most people won't bite that bullet. I disagree on the borderline murder thing, because I don't think being born in the same place as someone makes you morally accountable to protect them without any say on your part or agreement between you.
But seriously - I don't want to be part of this system. I don't agree that being born in the same place as me makes me accountable for your life without my agreeing to be.
But you say:
"If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion."
If you can't intelligently discuss this with me not agreeing with your conclusion, then it'd be kind of useless for me to continue huh? In fact, I reckon that no matter how many suggestions I put forth on a better way to save people's lives than a government run medical system, I don't think I'd change your mind.
Is it possible? Should I bother trying to explain, in that there's a chance I'd change your mind?
* If you can't intelligently discuss this with me not agreeing with your conclusion, then it'd be kind of useless for me to continue huh? *
It has been my experience, that no matter how smart and civilized, folks quickly start to sound ugly when it comes to health care. Take guests on Bill Maher show, for example. Proponents of a single payer system like myself quickly get called "communists" and it goes only down from there.
But sure, I am curious to hear how are you going to lower the cost of knee MRI exam from $1,100 to $80 (US vs Japan). You can even drop me a line if you want, my email is in my profile.
Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point:
> ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least...
Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo.
With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures.
> Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food?
They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time.
In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics.
> You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious.
1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on.
2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them.
3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society.
> It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric.
--
My points:
1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession.
2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along?
That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.