Healthcare dogmatist, get a load of this one...

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Well let's see, it started with...

I work in public healthcare. My mom works in public healthcare. Her sister works in public healthcare. That makes all of us government employees. All of us are extremely well paid. We all have extended health benefits covering 100% dental and orthodontic care. All our prescriptions are paid for. We do not have to wait for public services we can recieve privately more quickly like MRIs. All our benefits cover our spouses as well. We also have kick ass holidays.

Public healthcare employees are not slaves. Folks who work on assembly lines in hospital laundry facilities (linens used in hospitals need to be sterilised, not merely washed, so public facilities exist for that purpose) get the same benefits as I and are paid well over minimum wage.

I love the argument "If the government takes over one thing, they'll take over EVERYTHING!" Yep. It's absolutely impossible that they're inclined to publicise healthcare because making such a service public is the most beneficial to the most citizens. It MUST be because they want ALL services to be public so they can control everything!

Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to believe), just because someone thinks a socialised system works within the context of a particular service does not mean they feel that way about all services.

I went after the claim about healthcare not leading to slavery/loss of freedom

Lord T Hawkeye: Oh no? They already tried to pass laws to deny health benefits to people who are out of shape, who smoke or do other things they don't approve of. Sure, it got shot down but you see the problem? Government health care lets them get their foot in the door on your personal life.

You can avoid this question all you want but that will never be accepted as an answer: Why did government healthcare have to first get rid of all the mutual aid societies that we were using before? Why does it not only crowd out alternatives but even sometimes use the legal system to shut them down? Why does it fight the proposition to give a tax break to those who choose not to take advantage of the service, thus allowing them to back out if they don't like it? In simplest terms: if it works so well, WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO GIVE ITSELF A MONOPOLY ON IT?

We've gone after each other on this matter and boy does she get defensive when questioned about it...

On the first paragraph about "getting their foot in the door"
It also protects us from paying for the complications of other's excesses and encourages people to take responsibility for their health. Your being a lardass and having diabetes or my being a hooker with warts impacts everyone when universal health care is used to cover these preventable conditions. Neither of us has the right to allow ourselves to become a bigger sponge on society than we are without self-induced complications. Healthcare in Canada is a social service. Everyone pays for it. One person unnecessarily costing more than others and expecting everyone to cover their bills is completely unfair.

You are welcome to be fat or a crack user or have unprotected sex and contract all the STIs there are. I should not be expected to pay more for my taxes though due to your recklessness. Pay for your own goddamn treatment. This is why I'm entirely unfair of a private option that covers all elements of care.

Then I got this bogometer destroyer

I avoid your questions because I don't respect you. I do not value your opinions on this topic whatsoever. They are extreme and unrealistic. You base them on obscure, freak incidences or nothing at all. The only evidence you provide for your facist predictions are clips from television newmagazines like 60 Minutes that don't support your claims unless you watch them standing on your head. I am not inclined to discuss serious matters I'm well versed in with someone so emotional who treats the issue irrationally. I do not care that you don't accept my silence. I was not engaging you in discussion. There are reasonable six-year-olds I'm more worried about impressing.

And what's worse is, after I've repeatedly expressed I'm not willing to discuss these matters with you whatsoever because you subscribe to such extreme, unrealistic beliefs, YOU TROLL ME. Honestly, I've told you I won't speak to you about this before. Why are you addressing me and questioning me on this topic again? I'm just waiting for you to put words in my mouth. I LOVE how, when I shot down your claim that folks die of cancer waiting for treatment in Canada and identified it as typical scaremongering, you responded by accusing ME of having used scaremonger tactics, slagging those in favour of privatised health care. I have criticised certain elements of privatised healthcare. I have never spoken ill of those in favour of privatised healthcare, let alone called them "monsters" as you claimed, so you can blow that out your ass.

To the question about why they had to clear out all the private options...

Because when public healthcare was created in Canada the belief was no practitioners would work for public healthcare if the private, seemingly more lucrative option was available nor would patients be willing to see poorly paid, presumably unsatisfied doctors with less resources. The same argument is still used by people opposing a more relaxed two-tier system. "No doctor would be willing to work for public healthcare if they could work for private!"

To the question about why it fights the proposition to give tax breaks to those who want to opt out...

Because it's currently the law. We don't have a two-tier system yet that allows for MDs or surgeons to work privately or private specialty hospitals to exist. In order to finance the current system, everyone pays. If there were a private option folks were taking advantage of they wouldn't be expected to pay for everyone else's public healthcare. A private GP isn't available in Canada to folks who opt out of public healthcare. It would be irresponsible of the government to allow citizens of this country to be without it.

To the question of why government has to give itself a monopoly...

Your stance is no more rational than that of a fluffy socialist. Maybe the government having a monopoly on healthcare provides the largest number of people with the best available healthcare. No, no, no, no, no, no. Must assume the government has a nasty, alterior motive, regardless of facts.

I sure as hell don't believe all the government's actions regarding healthcare are altrustic. I don't claim to know everything either though nor do I use lies to enforce my beliefs.

I love the smell of burning bogosity in the morning!

[MrBogosity]

color=red]I avoid your questions because I don't respect you.[/color]

A clear sign of a woo. This might be a good reason for not responding to you at all, but it is not a good reason for responding in every other way except to answer your questions.

[Travis Retriever]

I work in public healthcare. My mom works in public healthcare. Her sister works in public healthcare. That makes all of us government employees. All of us are extremely well paid. We all have extended health benefits covering 100% dental and orthodontic care. All our prescriptions are paid for. We do not have to wait for public services we can recieve privately more quickly like MRIs. All our benefits cover our spouses as well. We also have kick ass holidays.

Anecdotal evidence.

Public healthcare employees are not slaves. Folks who work on assembly lines in hospital laundry facilities (linens used in hospitals need to be sterilised, not merely washed, so public facilities exist for that purpose) get the same benefits as I and are paid well over minimum wage.

And you're all poorer as a result.  She needs to look up "crowding out" as well as the stuff mentioned about raising wages without a corresponding rise in productivity written by Hazlitt.

I love the argument "If the government takes over one thing, they'll take over EVERYTHING!" Yep. It's absolutely impossible that they're inclined to publicise healthcare because making such a service public is the most beneficial to the most citizens. It MUST be because they want ALL services to be public so they can control everything!

Appeal to ridicule.

Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to believe), just because someone thinks a socialised system works within the context of a particular service does not mean they feel that way about all services.

Irrelavent.  The State isn't a single person.  She really needs to read Harry Browne's book, "Why Government Doesn't Work" to see why this point is completely ridiculous.

I went after the claim about health care not leading to slavery/loss of freedom

Lord T Hawkeye: Oh no? They already tried to pass laws to deny health benefits to people who are out of shape, who smoke or do other things they don't approve of. Sure, it got shot down but you see the problem? Government health care lets them get their foot in the door on your personal life.

You can avoid this question all you want but that will never be accepted as an answer: Why did government healthcare have to first get rid of all the mutual aid societies that we were using before? Why does it not only crowd out alternatives but even sometimes use the legal system to shut them down? Why does it fight the proposition to give a tax break to those who choose not to take advantage of the service, thus allowing them to back out if they don't like it? In simplest terms: if it works so well, WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO GIVE ITSELF A MONOPOLY ON IT?

Well put, Lord T Hawkeye.

We've gone after each other on this matter and boy does she get defensive when questioned about it...

On the first paragraph about "getting their foot in the door"
It also protects us from paying for the complications of other's excesses and encourages people to take responsibility for their health. Your being a lardass and having diabetes or my being a hooker with warts impacts everyone when universal health care is used to cover these preventable conditions. Neither of us has the right to allow ourselves to become a bigger sponge on society than we are without self-induced complications. Healthcare in Canada is a social service. Everyone pays for it. One person unnecessarily costing more than others and expecting everyone to cover their bills is completely unfair.

*facepalms*  You know what the ironic thing is?  I know a socialized medicine woo in Netherlands who actually used the opposite of this argument as a reason FOR socialized medicine.  He said that even if you weigh 400 pounds and had AIDS, they'd still have to accept you.
If what she says is true, then she's just destroyed a good chunk of argument for it.  That's more of an argument for Free market medicine than anything else.  Geeze.

You are welcome to be fat or a crack user or have unprotected sex and contract all the STIs there are. I should not be expected to pay more for my taxes though due to your recklessness. Pay for your own goddamn treatment. This is why I'm entirely unfair of a private option that covers all elements of care.

Again, that's an argument FOR free market medicine, not for socialized medicine.  It's even better when you look at how, when taxes, subsidies, etc are taken into account, private health care (free market health care, not the corporalist/socialist bullshit we have here in the states) IS the cheapest.  Is this women for real?

Then I got this bogometer destroyer

I avoid your questions because I don't respect you. I do not value your opinions on this topic whatsoever. They are extreme and unrealistic. You base them on obscure, freak incidences or nothing at all. The only evidence you provide for your facist predictions are clips from television newmagazines like 60 Minutes that don't support your claims unless you watch them standing on your head. I am not inclined to discuss serious matters I'm well versed in with someone so emotional who treats the issue irrationally. I do not care that you don't accept my silence. I was not engaging you in discussion. There are reasonable six-year-olds I'm more worried about impressing.

Blatant Ad Hominem.  Not to mention typical socialist egotistic elitism.  The next point is a strawman (I've yet to see such stuff come from you).  Yet she can barely type with good grammar...
Translation:  Rather than actually address your points and evidence, I'm going to shove my head into my ass, take a huge whiff, and ignore you like a creationist does evidence for evolution.

And what's worse is, after I've repeatedly expressed I'm not willing to discuss these matters with you whatsoever because you subscribe to such extreme, unrealistic beliefs, YOU TROLL ME. Honestly, I've told you I won't speak to you about this before. Why are you addressing me and questioning me on this topic again? I'm just waiting for you to put words in my mouth. I LOVE how, when I shot down your claim that folks die of cancer waiting for treatment in Canada and identified it as typical scaremongering, you responded by accusing ME of having used scaremonger tactics, slagging those in favour of privatised health care. I have criticised certain elements of privatised healthcare. I have never spoken ill of those in favour of privatised healthcare, let alone called them "monsters" as you claimed, so you can blow that out your ass.

*facepalms*  UNREALISTIC!?!?!?!  Bullshit.   We have tons of evidence that it works, it DID work and it does work.  Her next point is ad hominem tu quoque.

To the question about why they had to clear out all the private options...

Because when public healthcare was created in Canada the belief was no practitioners would work for public healthcare if the private, seemingly more lucrative option was available nor would patients be willing to see poorly paid, presumably unsatisfied doctors with less resources. The same argument is still used by people opposing a more relaxed two-tier system. "No doctor would be willing to work for public healthcare if they could work for private!"

I wonder if she's aware of the charity hospitals we had in the USA in the early 1960s before the State REALLY started meddling?

To the question about why it fights the proposition to give tax breaks to those who want to opt out...

Because it's currently the law. We don't have a two-tier system yet that allows for MDs or surgeons to work privately or private specialty hospitals to exist. In order to finance the current system, everyone pays. If there were a private option folks were taking advantage of they wouldn't be expected to pay for everyone else's public healthcare. A private GP isn't available in Canada to folks who opt out of public healthcare. It would be irresponsible of the government to allow citizens of this country to be without it.

Translation:  Because God, I mean Gov, said so.  Sorry, but the State isn't the arbitor of morality anymore than Yahweh is.  In other words, she approves of force, deadly if necessary to prevent people from exchanging the product of their labors in exchange for a good/service from willing providers.  Girl, you are a tyrant.  False dichotomy.  Just because the State isn't providing health services doesn't mean they won't be provided.  Refer her to that article from Mises showing the Shriner Hospitals and the like.

To the question of why government has to give itself a monopoly...

Your stance is no more rational than that of a fluffy socialist. Maybe the government having a monopoly on healthcare provides the largest number of people with the best available healthcare. No, no, no, no, no, no. Must assume the government has a nasty, alterior motive, regardless of facts.

I sure as hell don't believe all the government's actions regarding healthcare are altrustic. I don't claim to know everything either though nor do I use lies to enforce my beliefs.

*facepalms*  No, because it doesn't work.  God.  Has she even LOOKED at the bloody evidence?  The first point is an appeal to idealism.  Her next is idle (blind) speculation).  *facepalms* We are NOT making conspiracy theories.   She needs to watch Shane's video on the free market.  In a socialist system, because the people running the State are still human, they want to seek profit too!  Because they don't any incentive to provide cost effective service, they won't.  I won't even get into the economic calculation problems of something like that.
*rolls his eyes* Yet she hasn't said one honest/truthful thing yet.  Pathetic.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

This one's even better if that's possible.

Man, seeing this ridiculus discussion again...

In the name of all that is good and true, I am glad to be a European!!!

Nobody in Europe, and I ask my fellow european brothers to second that, would be so stupid, so ignorant, antisocial, selfish and brainless to question social health care. We all have been needing it in the past or will need it in the future or have relatives that needet it or need it. Its simply logical!
Then again we are Europeans. We use the metric system. We dont believe in a silly theory of "intelligent design", we know evolution is a scientific fact. We don´t elect our leaders because they seem to be nice chaps with which we would like to drink a beer at the pub around the corner, we vote for the ones that appear to be most competend to get the job done. And if one of our leaders would exclaim that his actions are "guided by god" he would lose his office because a politician who says something like that is obviously clinically insane and not fit for a public office. Our justice system is basing on resocialisation and reintegration of the deliquent as a productive member of society, not useless locking away, that brutalises the deliquents even more, or worse, the barbaric, senseless and disgusting practise of death penalty. We live in freedom, our gouverments have to answer to us, not we to them, because we don´t have a borderline-fascist police state watching over us and silences everybody who questions these actions with the untrue arguement that its necessary to "protect us from the Terrorists/communists/wacky foreignerns/whatever". And finally we know that a state without a proper social network, and that includes a social health care system, will fail sooner or later. Americans, stop believing you are on top of the world, because you are not. You may have been 1948, the year that propaganda cartoon was made in, but its 2009, almost 2010, and the world has changed, and frankly, my transatlantic friends, you have done slim to none to stay on top.

That first sentence about not questioning social healthcare pretty much says it all.

[MrBogosity]

Nobody in Europe, and I ask my fellow european brothers to second that, would be so stupid, so ignorant, antisocial, selfish and brainless to question social health care.

This, of course, does not explain the number of Europeans who ARE questioning socialized medicine, and why countries such as Sweden are moving away from it.

His whole post was just brainless jingoism.

[Travis Retriever]

This, of course, does not explain the number of Europeans who ARE questioning socialized medicine, and why countries such as Sweden are moving away from it.

His whole post was just brainless jingoism.

You got through it?
I couldn't even get myself up to read it past the first sentence.  As soon as I saw that first sentence, I thought to myself, "State Cultist; you might as well be trying to reason with a $cientologist, or a fundamentalist Christian."

[MrBogosity]

I'll translate it for you:

Blah blah blah blah we're smart blah blah blah blah you're idiots blah blah blah blah we're right blah blah blah blah have another insult.

[Virgil0211]

The same guy just posted this in response to LTH's post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye View Post
This sentence pretty much says it all about you. "you're evil if you question this"? How ridiculous can you get?

Stop twisting the words in my mouth. I said stupid and antisocial, not evil. Now who is ridiculus, if you don´t know the difference between evil and stupid... Well lets say I see where your mindset comes from...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye View Post
Nobody in Europe you say? How do you explain the many Europeans who DO in fact question social healthcare or the fact that Sweden is starting to move away from it?

Excuse me? Where did you hear that nonsense? I learned a bit about swedish politics in the last months since Sweden has in this half year the EU-presidency, so there were many reports about swedish politics in our newspapers and news magazines, and I read or saw nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, anthing like that. So I call bull unless you can give me a solid prove for this claim. Of course it is possible that you, a person from a country in which a colourfull potpourri of propaganda, fear mongering, sex, violence, idiot celebritys, sports and weather counts as evening news, are better informed about european politics than an actual European, but I just guess you just pointed at a random country on a map of Europe and pulled the claim out of your arse. There are actually Swedes here, you know, lets ask them, I bet they are surprised and stunned by your incredible insights in their internal politics.

[MrBogosity]

However, strict cost containment means that patients are facing decreasing access to care. Medical staff are leaving for the private sector, and more than 20% of hospital beds are now privately funded. In the long term such privatisation may seriously threaten the equity and sustainability of a universal system that depends on loyalty from broad constituencies.

--"Devolution in Swedish health care: Local government isn't powerful enough to control costs or stop privatisation," British Medical Journal

In this context it's instructive to look at what is going on in Sweden, the country that has come to symbolize the ethos of egalitarianism and social democracy.

A little revolution has been going on since the early 1990s in that country, particularly in its capital, Stockholm. A political coalition at the Greater Stockholm Council, the regional authority responsible for local health-care management, decided then to introduce some competition, to help shake up its underperforming monopoly services.

About 150 small and medium-size health-care contractors, many of them nurses demoralized by poor working conditions and low pay who jumped at the chance to start up their own enterprises, were issued licenses. More service units are now preparing to leave the public sector. One of the biggest hospitals in the city was even sold to a private company; the others are being transformed into commercially viable, and thus saleable, entities. A profusion of private health-care companies is replacing the single-provider system.

--"The Stockholm Syndrome: Swedish health-care reforms show a private-public mix can lower costs while pleasing patients, doctors and unions," The Gazette (Montreal), 6 April 2002

Lindell is among the parents backing Sweden's first private hospital for children. Opening in the second half of 2008 in Stockholm's affluent Oestermalm district, Martina Children's Hospital will handle about 20,000 emergency cases a year, a third of Astrid Lindgren's case load.

While Swedish hospitals rank among the best in the world, the slow pace of care has led many wealthy residents to opt out of the government-funded medical system. That's creating tensions in a society where cradle-to-grave welfare programs have traditionally provided equal access to care for everyone.

--"Sick Swedish Kids Wait for Care, Spurring Parents to Go Private," Bloomberg.com, 24 January 2008

But, by all means, continue with the anecdotes and the insults; after all, that's the only way to maintain a woo opinion in the face of facts and statistics...

[Travis Retriever]

@Virgil and Shane:  I thought LTHE said the person responding was female?

[Virgil0211]

Nah. That was the one who started this debate. This is someone else. Frankly, I don't know how LTHE can stand posting there. The environment is so hostile.

[Travis Retriever]

Posting where?
Where is this debate taking place?

[Virgil0211]

http://www.process-productions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21309&page=3

[Travis Retriever]

Thanks Virgil.

I personally laughed when I saw this bit:  "He's from Canada.  Don't group that moron in with us!" (Referring to LTHE being from Europe).

OK, the person making the claim about UPS vs FedEx just shot himself in the foot:  [yt]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QzZ0nz7XVFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QzZ0nz7XVFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/yt]
That's the reason why FedEx is doing better; because they don't have as high labor costs via unions.
What's more, I wonder if he knows that Corporations, by definition are an arm of the state via the whole legal entity deal?

[MrBogosity]

http://www.process-productions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21309&page=3

Well, at least it seems a lot better than the League of Reason forum...