Health Care Reform

[The Miser 18]

What this and a number of other similar issues come down to is what is government's function. Is the government is our parent that's supposed to take care of us kids? Or is the government supposed to perform a few functions for us to allow us an environment in which we can take care of ourselves? I prefer the latter. Government should arrange national defense, arrest and prosecute lawbreakers and regulate business so that it doesn't enslave the working class or become monopolies which unfairly charge us for goods and services. Beyond that, all of us adults should be in charge of taking care of ourselves. Since government is not even doing a particularly good job of those few legitimate functions, I'm not in favor of giving it more responsibility. The bottom line is: the more government takes care of you, the less freedom you have. I enjoy being a free man.

I don't think even the worst possible government would actually force you to enjoy the benefits of free universal healthcare if you were to insist on paying your way.

 

Assuming you could.

 

As stated in my previous post, nap, we won't have a choice once government run healthcare is established. Free you say? What in life is free? Won't we be paying for this through our taxes? I'd rather continue to pay as I have been than put something as important as our health in the government's control and pay fro that. Assuming I could pay? I have been paying for my healthcare since becoming an adult. It may sound like a strange concept but people can and do pay for things like healthcare, food and housing.

People? All people can pay for healthcare? That's interesting news. Or do you just mean people worth mentioning, i.e: those of a certain socio-economic rank and/or ethnic background?

Anyway, I'd be surprised if you didn't have a choice.

Here in Germany nobody is under the illusion that healthcare is free for anyone but the very poorest in society. Anyone who can afford to can also choose to opt out of the state system (a monthly payment clearly distinct from your income tax) and pay much more for a faster and better private service from the same doctors and hospitals much to the detriment of those in the public system.

I reckon you could do that in the USA too.

 

If your conscience allows it.

 

Replace the word government with 'big corporations with their own dodgy agendas'.

 

Reading these posts , I suddenly wondered : Has health insurance always been attached to jobs, and if not, what prompted this connection? I discovered that this is a uniquely American concept and this article gives a brief history if anyone is interested. The marriage of jobs to health care has always struck me as a bit odd but I just chalked it up to the fact that medical costs had risen so high that no one could ever afford it without insurance, and that offering benefits was a way to attract employess and promote loyalty among the workers.

 

My wife works purely for health insurance. It will be interesting to see if jobs that don't pay well but have great benefits will lose people. For example: Government workers and school teachers may have a harder time attracting people.

[deadsox 892]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

The mere repetition of neoliberal dogma and the constant affirmation of an "I'm all right Jack / Let them eat cake" attitude is but a poor argument for denying basic health care to millions of ones countrymen.

[Tomb raider 9]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

 

No, I didn't miss your point, I got it completely. I just wholeheartedly disagree. First of all: no-one but some obscure North Korean or Birmese apparatsjiks would want government to do 'everything' for its citizens. You make a debate on the limits of state power in health care into some polarized ideological clash of principles. I know that this is one of the main discussions in American political debate, but in Europe it is not. Regulating better access to health care is not a state 'taking over', it is a way of protecting millions of citizens who - for whatever reason - are unable to do so by themselves on this particular issue. We're talking about making health care insurance compulsary, that's not about taking over anything, come on!

 

One of the arguments in my previous posts was, that you're being paranoid about 'the state'. I quote:

The state is not a cold, abstract monster, it's you, together with all your friends and neighbours, and its executives are the people you elected - or the people controlled by them. You're always so optimistic about your democratic system, why don't you start trusting it a little bit more?

No nation has gone so far in assuring a system of checks and balances as yours. If that system doesn't work, change it. If you fear government, move. If you refuse to help out others, go live as an hermit in the wilderness of Alaska all by yourself. And please, please, please, don't ever boast about your manifest destiny, or about the blessings of parliamentary democracy ever again. If you don't believe in them, what are you doing in Iraq or in Afghanistan?

[Guest Benjamin Franklin]

Maybe this debate should be framed around the concept of mutualism rather than big government v freedom of the individual. Both the private health care system in the US and the NHS in the UK are funded largely through insurance. In the UK it's compulsory national insurance for everyone who lives there and in the US its private insurance. Both systems have private arrangements that allow people to pay out of their pockets. People can and do take advantage of the private system in the UK. The UK, on the other hand has catch all system that provides a good standard of health care to anyone who needs it, whether or not they are employed and pay their stamp. That's something that people in Britain take pride in. They carry their wounded.

 

The problem with the insurance-led private system is that it attaches a price tag to everything and measures the standard of care against your wealth and willingness to pay for it (or that of your insurer). If I was wealthy I would feel distinctly uncomfortable about speeding to the operating table in front of people whose need was greater than mine but who could not afford to jump the queue.

 

The concept of wealth buying your seat in heaven was promoted by the Catholic Church in medieval times, leading to the rise in Protestantism. Protestantism in turn promoted capitalism that has flourished nowhere stronger than in the US. It is ironic therefore that this system is now enabling the very kind of privilege that those who laid its foundation did their utmost to destroy.

 

Competition is fine in some circumstances but not others. Did the firemen who went to the Twin Towers think about health premiums and the advantage of wealth when they entered those towers, knowing there was a good chance they would die in doing their duty? No, they thought about the job they had to do and about supporting their colleagues. When it comes down to it Americans believe as much as anyone in carrying their wounded. That said, not that many stepped over the line to defend the Alamo. Most of those who did so were Scots immigrants. So when it comes to preserving freedoms those who enjoy the land of the free should remain humble enough to recognise that others (including some fighting the US in Afghanistan) care just as much about preserving their right to live the way they choose.

[Madame Defarge 21]

Maybe this debate should be framed around the concept of mutualism rather than big government v freedom of the individual. Both the private health care system in the US and the NHS in the UK are funded largely through insurance. In the UK it's compulsory national insurance for everyone who lives there and in the US its private insurance. Both systems have private arrangements that allow people to pay out of their pockets. People can and do take advantage of the private system in the UK. The UK, on the other hand has catch all system that provides a good standard of health care to anyone who needs it, whether or not they are employed and pay their stamp. That's something that people in Britain take pride in. They carry their wounded.

 

The problem with the insurance-led private system is that it attaches a price tag to everything and measures the standard of care against your wealth and willingness to pay for it (or that of your insurer). If I was wealthy I would feel distinctly uncomfortable about speeding to the operating table in front of people whose need was greater than mine but who could not afford to jump the queue.

 

The concept of wealth buying your seat in heaven was promoted by the Catholic Church in medieval times, leading to the rise in Protestantism. Protestantism in turn promoted capitalism that has flourished nowhere stronger than in the US. It is ironic therefore that this system is now enabling the very kind of privilege that those who laid its foundation did their utmost to destroy.

 

Competition is fine in some circumstances but not others. Did the firemen who went to the Twin Towers think about health premiums and the advantage of wealth when they entered those towers, knowing there was a good chance they would die in doing their duty? No, they thought about the job they had to do and about supporting their colleagues. When it comes down to it Americans believe as much as anyone in carrying their wounded. That said, not that many stepped over the line to defend the Alamo. Most of those who did so were Scots immigrants. So when it comes to preserving freedoms those who enjoy the land of the free should remain humble enough to recognise that others (including some fighting the US in Afghanistan) care just as much about preserving their right to live the way they choose.

 

Always good to hear from one of my favorite Founding Fathers.

 

I would like to nominate Guest Benjamin Franklin for the coveted BIPPY award. (Best Posthumous Post of the Year Award).

[CarolAnn 926]

*snip*

 

That said, not that many stepped over the line to defend the Alamo. Most of those who did so were Scots immigrants.

 

*snip*

 

Actually, according to the Alamo Defenders Descendants Association and the Texas State Historical Association, only four of the dead at the Alamo are known to be Scottish immigrants - Richard Ballentine, John McGregor, Isaac Robinson, and David Wilson.

 

Some of the other American-born defenders' families may have originated in Scotland, but they were not immigrants themselves. The majority of the Alamo defenders were American born.

 

As of this point the known foreign defender count of the Alamo is:

 

Denmark - 1

England - 15

Ireland - 9

Germany - 2

Scotland - 4

Wales - 1

 

The Alamo Defenders

The Alamo Defenders Descendants Association list

 

It has been argued that Sam Houston knew the Alamo was indefensible and there is evidence that he sent James Bowie there with orders to remove the artillery and the residents from the area and destroy the Alamo. Some historians believe the orders were discretionary, but they were pretty strongly indicative of Houston's opinion that the Alamo was indefensible. Bowie, in collaboration with James Neill, convinced Governor Smith that the Alamo was a strategic location that must be defended, despite evidence to the contrary and Houston's own opinion.

 

Bowie was elected leader of the Alamo forces by the volunteers - not the regular soldiers - and promptly celebrated by getting completely drunk, rampaging through Bexar and causing a huge scene. William Travis took his regular soldiers out of the Alamo to escape Bowie's drunken rampage. Bowie wound up having to share leadership with Travis to regain the regular soldiers.

 

Although I was taught that Bowie fell from the Alamo while positioning a cannon, it is now known that he was extremely ill - probably with TB - and he was confined to his cot after collapsing during preparations to defend the Alamo. He was killed there by multiple shots to the head, probably completely helpless to do anything to affect his fate when Santa Anna's troops entered the Alamo.

 

Although it has long been held as a rallying cry in Texas, and is undoubtedly an important turning point in the history of Texas, it is very apparent that the Battle of the Alamo should never have happened. Sam Houston was correct - it was indefensible - and it can be argued that Bowie's arrogance is the primary reason Governor Smith agreed to defend the Alamo. The approximately 189 Alamo defenders (the number waxes and wanes periodically as new information is discovered about the battle) stood no chance against Santa Anna's 1800-strong Centralist Army, although they did take approximately 500 of the Mexican troops with them.

[The Miser 18]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

 

 

You really want to talk American politics with this group?

[Josco 49]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

Absolutely spot on. In general due to ever increasing government interference we are becoming dependant on unelected bureaucrats to make all our decisions for us. The all pervasive 'Health & Safety' culture has absolved all from blame, everything is someone else's fault; every issue or problem generates 'knee jerk' legislation from them, often with ill thought out consequences. The risible idea that 'the man from Whitehall knows best' has gained credence among the chatterati, freedoms are being extinguished with alarming rapidity.

 

In the UK one in three adults depends entirely* upon the government for their income, this cannot go on, it is economic madness. But this current administration has embarked on a 'scorched earth policy' knowing that they will not be elected again next year and the incoming government will have to make such unpopular decisions that they will surely be voted out again.

 

 

 

*These include the 3 million unemployed (and the unemployable), nurses, doctors, police, traffic wardens, quangocrats, BBC employees, street cleaners, Customs & Excise workers, the military, 501,000 civil servants (sic) and innumerable others whose only purpose is to tell me what to do and how to live my life.

[CarolAnn 926]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

 

 

You really want to talk American politics with this group?

 

Why not? Some of us are American, some of the others actually have some concrete knowledge of American affairs - throw in a few with unsubstantiated opinions and a guest posing as an American founding father with zero knowledge of Texas history and it could be a pretty good way to end the year!

[Josco 49]

Why not? Some of us are American, some of the others actually have some concrete knowledge of American affairs - throw in a few with unsubstantiated opinions and a guest posing as an American founding father with zero knowledge of Texas history and it could be a pretty good way to end the year!

He had some "pretty good soundbites too".

[CarolAnn 926]

Why not? Some of us are American, some of the others actually have some concrete knowledge of American affairs - throw in a few with unsubstantiated opinions and a guest posing as an American founding father with zero knowledge of Texas history and it could be a pretty good way to end the year!

He had some "pretty good soundbites too".

 

One of my favorites.

[deadsox 892]

It seems like a lot of people commenting are missing my point. The point is that if government does everything for you, you will be completely dependent on it and you will gradually lose your freedom. Maybe Europeans are already getting used to that. If I sound eccentric, so be it. I am not rich. I do work for a living. I have also seen at close hand how inefficient and wasteful government is. For government to intervene to make health care more affordable and accessible is a legitimate role for government. To take it over will be a catastrophe.

 

No, I didn't miss your point, I got it completely. I just wholeheartedly disagree. First of all: no-one but some obscure North Korean or Birmese apparatsjiks would want government to do 'everything' for its citizens. You make a debate on the limits of state power in health care into some polarized ideological clash of principles. I know that this is one of the main discussions in American political debate, but in Europe it is not. Regulating better access to health care is not a state 'taking over', it is a way of protecting millions of citizens who - for whatever reason - are unable to do so by themselves on this particular issue. We're talking about making health care insurance compulsary, that's not about taking over anything, come on!

 

One of the arguments in my previous posts was, that you're being paranoid about 'the state'. I quote:

The state is not a cold, abstract monster, it's you, together with all your friends and neighbours, and its executives are the people you elected - or the people controlled by them. You're always so optimistic about your democratic system, why don't you start trusting it a little bit more?

No nation has gone so far in assuring a system of checks and balances as yours. If that system doesn't work, change it. If you fear government, move. If you refuse to help out others, go live as an hermit in the wilderness of Alaska all by yourself. And please, please, please, don't ever boast about your manifest destiny, or about the blessings of parliamentary democracy ever again. If you don't believe in them, what are you doing in Iraq or in Afghanistan?

 

Ah Tomb Raider, where do I begin? How about manifest destiny. Manifest destiny??? Please show me the post in which I profess or endorse manifest destiny, because I'd like to have the moderators check into who's been using my account. How about trusting government? Have you lost your mind? I trust people and things that have given me good reason to trust them. I do not trust government and no one should. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It seems as if Germans in the 1930's trusted their government. How did that work out? I think that was your "cold abstract monster" and then some. In a democratic republic, the opposition has a right and a duty to oppose measures that the government takes which we disagree with. I believe that even you refer to this when you say "if that system doesn't work, change it". Yes, we shall do just that. How about "If you fear your government, move"? This sounds a lot like the "America-Love it or Leave it" nonsense that was bandied about in the 60's and 70's. No, I don't fear the government, I merely oppose it (on some issues). I won't move, I'll just use my constitutional rights to have my say. You say I refuse to help others? How did you get to know me? Are you aware that people who are incapable of providing for themselves are already covered by health insurance in the US? It's called Medicaid (as opposed to Medicare). The people who are getting shut out in the current system are working people who are either not covered by their employers, denied by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, unable to afford the premiums or laid off and can't afford that coverage. But of course, all you Europeans know a lot more about the US than we do, because you've read a few articles on the internet. If you (and the rest of my detractors) really read my posts, you'll see that I agree with a reform of the system that would address these problems. I merely am against a wholesale government take over because I know first hand how wasteful and inefficient they are. The end is really funny. In the same post that you say I should trust the government, you mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you want to rethink that? The strange thing is that I have come to respect the thoughtful and intelligent posts that you normally submit (even the ones I disagree with). I will have to chalk this one up to you dashing something off without thinking.

[Estuarian Float 97]

[CarolAnn 926]

*snip*

 

It's called Medicaid (as opposed to Medicare). The people who are getting shut out in the current system are working people who are either not covered by their employers, denied by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, unable to afford the premiums or laid off and can't afford that coverage.

 

*snip*

 

The quality of Medicaid varies from state to state. Since Medicaid funding is partially at the state level, states like Texas set the bar so high for Medicaid that it generally only covers children (with limits) and the severely disabled. There are plenty of people in Texas who are too sick to work who can't get Medicaid. They have nothing. Around here, the answer to everything is "pull yourself up by your bootstras - even if you can't afford any."

 

I disagree that the only people getting shut out of coverage in the United States as a whole are "working people who are either not covered by their employers, denied by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, unable to afford the premiums or laid off and can't afford that coverage." Even so, those people deserve to have health care. If I wasn't employed, I would not have health insurance because I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder when I was 17. Consquently, I wouldn't be able to afford the medications that keep me stable. I already can't get life insurance.

 

I do not agree with the proposal by the Democrats, but not because I don't believe we need wholesale reform. We do.

 

We need to leverage what we already have - Medicare, Medicaid, and the private sector - to ensure everyone has some level of health care coverage that meets a sensible level of care. Bailing out Wall Street then refusing to provide health insurance coverage for the poor and uninsured smacks of elitism, which I expect from the Republicans, and the amount of money the original public option plan was going to cost was way over the top, which I expect from Democrats.

 

This is not a philosophical issue of Socialism, which conservatives would have us believe, or of compassion, which liberals would have us believe. It's an issue of common sense. We are already paying for the uninsured every time one of them walks into an emergency room with some illness that should have been treated by a private physician, but is now pneumonia when originally it was a simple allergy attack. When the hospital writes the cost off on their taxes, or they pass the charge on to those of us with insurance, we all pay. My belief is that we can swizzle what we already have to come up with a system that will cover everyone, regardless of ability to pay or pre-existing conditions. We just need to move the money.

 

Unfortunately, my belief is also that there is no sense in Washington and whatever comes out of the conference committee will be 1) expensive and 2) ineffectual. The only thing to fear in Washington is incompetence, and one of the amazing things about our government is that it survives in spite of the incompetence that is inherent inside the Beltway.

 

I suspect Deadsox and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I think we agree on a couple of things - patriotism is not necessarily jingoism, dissent is not necessarily destructive, and distrusting the people in government is not necessarily distrust in a form of government. This may be a uniquely American POV - I don't know - but what I frequently see is that the intent of what comes out of Congress is frequently not what actually gets put into effect by the bureaucracy, and I can't believe that's any different in other countries. I suspect that is the issue many people have with a "public option" or "national health option" here - no one argues that there are those who need the help, but they don't feel comfortable with the government acting as the provider and believe it needs to only be the regulator.

[CarolAnn 926]

Im itching to get out of America! And I'm 16 at a catholic high school which makes it so much worse. I cant say Im proud of spending half my teen years in the '00s. By what I see, most Americans believe it is immoral to disobey the government. Is Spain nice?

 

Getting out of the Catholic high school would probably suffice. They tend to be a bubble. Spain is a predominantly Catholic nation, by the way.

 

You need to define what you mean to "disobey the government." Kill someone? Yes, that is wrong. Protest the government's decisions and positions? Plenty of people do that all the time. I spent most of the last administration doing that.

 

You have no control about what decade you grow up in, so there is no need to be ashamed or proud of that. I finished raising my kids in the last decade and I think it was better than the 1980's, which is when I came of age.

[Estuarian Float 97]

Im itching to get out of America! And I'm 16 at a catholic high school which makes it so much worse. I cant say Im proud of spending half my teen years in the '00s. By what I see, most Americans believe it is immoral to disobey the government. Is Spain nice?

 

Getting out of the Catholic high school would probably suffice. They tend to be a bubble. Spain is a predominantly Catholic nation, by the way.

 

You need to define what you mean to "disobey the government." Kill someone? Yes, that is wrong. Protest the government's decisions and positions? Plenty of people do that all the time. I spent most of the last administration doing that.

 

You have no control about what decade you grow up in, so there is no need to be ashamed or proud of that. I finished raising my kids in the last decade and I think it was better than the 1980's, which is when I came of age.

 

Yea I knew about Spain's religions. And thats not what I meant. I mean for example, do you refrain from murdering someone in fear of the government or do you refrain because you know it wont get you anywhere better. Its just America's allegiance to these people in DC that scares me. I never believed that having leaders would make for a successful "team". If we just cut off this system, I believe everyone could live the life they want. But they have everyone spellbound, implying things like "money is necessary for a good life" and "if you dont listen to us, American Airlines will come and attack your hometown."

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Thank you CarolAnn for that highly articulate and insightful post. I must confess to not knowing the ins and outs of the current system and the proposed one.

 

My argument with Deadsox is that he clearly doesn't think that those who can't afford to pay for heath care under the current system should get any if it means it gets paid for with taxes paid by him.

Doesn't make him a very likeable chap in my eyes because it suggests he isn't exactly concerned with the wellbeing of his fellow men. Except to the extent that they shouldn't have to pay taxes for things he doesn't agree with.

[deadsox 892]

Thank you CarolAnn for that highly articulate and insightful post. I must confess to not knowing the ins and outs of the current system and the proposed one.

 

My argument with Deadsox is that he clearly doesn't think that those who can't afford to pay for heath care under the current system should get any if it means it gets paid for with taxes paid by him.

Doesn't make him a very likeable chap in my eyes because it suggests he isn't exactly concerned with the wellbeing of his fellow men. Except to the extent that they shouldn't have to pay taxes for things he doesn't agree with.

 

Well, nap we can agree on one thing, CarolAnn's post was articulate and insightful. As long as you're confessing, why don't you also confess to not knowing me at all. I know all this cyber-babble is fun and it's great to exchange opinions with people all over the world, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one shouldn't presume to know a man until you've had a chance to look into his eyes. or at least carefully read what he's written. I certainly am concerned with my fellow man. Like many liberals (am I assuming too much here?) you equate opposition to a brainless system to indifference for the poor. I'm convinced, like CarolAnn, that we can do it better. In spite of what you may think, I'm not some Dickensian mill owner who's kicking widows and orphans to the curb. Not likable in your eyes? I'll take that as a compliment.

[deadsox 892]

Im itching to get out of America! And I'm 16 at a catholic high school which makes it so much worse. I cant say Im proud of spending half my teen years in the '00s. By what I see, most Americans believe it is immoral to disobey the government. Is Spain nice?

 

Actually, 93, most Americans (in my experience at least) believe that it is a moral imperative to disobey the government if that government is immoral. The tricky part is judging people and institutions in terms of morality. It's pretty complicated (at least for me). Itching to get out of America? You'll soon have that right. One caution: There's an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it".

[Magere Hein 1,399]

Itching to get out of America? You'll soon have that right. One caution: There's an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it".

Do you mean getting out of America as in: join the Navy, see the world, meet interesting people and kill them?

 

regards,

Hein

[Tomb raider 9]

Ah Tomb Raider, where do I begin? How about manifest destiny. Manifest destiny??? Please show me the post in which I profess or endorse manifest destiny, because I'd like to have the moderators check into who's been using my account. How about trusting government? Have you lost your mind? I trust people and things that have given me good reason to trust them. I do not trust government and no one should. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It seems as if Germans in the 1930's trusted their government. How did that work out? I think that was your "cold abstract monster" and then some. In a democratic republic, the opposition has a right and a duty to oppose measures that the government takes which we disagree with. I believe that even you refer to this when you say "if that system doesn't work, change it". Yes, we shall do just that. How about "If you fear your government, move"? This sounds a lot like the "America-Love it or Leave it" nonsense that was bandied about in the 60's and 70's. No, I don't fear the government, I merely oppose it (on some issues). I won't move, I'll just use my constitutional rights to have my say. You say I refuse to help others? How did you get to know me? Are you aware that people who are incapable of providing for themselves are already covered by health insurance in the US? It's called Medicaid (as opposed to Medicare). The people who are getting shut out in the current system are working people who are either not covered by their employers, denied by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, unable to afford the premiums or laid off and can't afford that coverage. But of course, all you Europeans know a lot more about the US than we do, because you've read a few articles on the internet. If you (and the rest of my detractors) really read my posts, you'll see that I agree with a reform of the system that would address these problems. I merely am against a wholesale government take over because I know first hand how wasteful and inefficient they are. The end is really funny. In the same post that you say I should trust the government, you mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you want to rethink that? The strange thing is that I have come to respect the thoughtful and intelligent posts that you normally submit (even the ones I disagree with). I will have to chalk this one up to you dashing something off without thinking.

 

To be honest, part of my post was not aimed at you in particular, but at many of your fellow Americans who tend to come up with arguments like that. But let's be frank: your obvious fear for big government even when there's nothing to be feared of - Obama's health care plans have nothing to do with the state 'taking over' - made it easy for me to place you in the same rightish conservative camp where terms like manifest destiny are commonplace. I understand that I was too hasty with my conclusions, but I never intended to insult you by that.

 

I also completely agree that I'm not a specialist on the subject and I never even faintly hinted that I knew more about American society than the Americans themselves do. That's why I post things like this on a public forum called 'extra-curricular', implying that we're just having a talk, and we're not making scientific analysis. But yes, I have read a few articles on the internet, what else should I have done? Just shut up and listen to you or to Americans who had not even done that? I do know a thing or two about issues like these and - even more important - I read the newspaper, which is more than most of your conversation partners do.

 

But let's get ontopic. Everyone who's in their right minds opposes a wholesale government taking over. The question is whether you should interpret proposals like Obama's on health care as a further step to that disastrous quasi-communist or quasi-fascist omnipotent state. You obviously do, I clearly don't - which more or less reflects the mainstream American and European ways of observing governmental actions. My argument was that it's a paranoid way of looking at your government, while many of your compatriots tend to be so optimistic about your system. That optimism instigated the neo-conservative drivel that led your army to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thát was my point, though I agree with you that my post could be read easily in such a way that I seemed to contradict myself. Every system has its shortcomings, but is that a reason to mistrust everything that your system brings forth? You could call me naive, but I don't believe so. Living in a modern society includes handing over some of your freedom to 'the state', there's nothing for it. Even in the Netherlands - where issues like these have never been discussed so fiercely on a principal level as in the United States - people do, of course, differ in their willingness to give the state more power. But in general, we trust the institutions that shield us from abuse by the state, and we have every reason to do so. It never lead my country to totalitarian rule, though I agree that some other examples proved that it could well have been otherwise. Trusting your government does not imply that you shouldn't be critical or watchful, it means that you do not mistrust everything it comes up with, especially not if it would clearly solve existing problems that need to be fixed. And you and I do agree that those problems exist, don't we?

 

Thanks for your compliment (blush blush) but I had thought about my earlier post carefully and I still stand for most of it.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Thank you CarolAnn for that highly articulate and insightful post. I must confess to not knowing the ins and outs of the current system and the proposed one.

 

My argument with Deadsox is that he clearly doesn't think that those who can't afford to pay for heath care under the current system should get any if it means it gets paid for with taxes paid by him.

Doesn't make him a very likeable chap in my eyes because it suggests he isn't exactly concerned with the wellbeing of his fellow men. Except to the extent that they shouldn't have to pay taxes for things he doesn't agree with.

 

Well, nap we can agree on one thing, CarolAnn's post was articulate and insightful. As long as you're confessing, why don't you also confess to not knowing me at all. I know all this cyber-babble is fun and it's great to exchange opinions with people all over the world, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one shouldn't presume to know a man until you've had a chance to look into his eyes. or at least carefully read what he's written. I certainly am concerned with my fellow man. Like many liberals (am I assuming too much here?) you equate opposition to a brainless system to indifference for the poor. I'm convinced, like CarolAnn, that we can do it better. In spite of what you may think, I'm not some Dickensian mill owner who's kicking widows and orphans to the curb. Not likable in your eyes? I'll take that as a compliment.

The last time I heard that kind of an argument, it came from none lesser than Banshees Scream: "Pay no attention to the impression you have gained of me, get to know me properly and you'll see what a lovely guy I am"

Perhaps if, like CarolAnn, you came up with a constructive idea for helping people with no health insurance instead of whinging about how your taxes are getting wasted on the undeserving (that is in any case the message which comes over, and I do take the trouble to read your posts carefully) you might come over in a more sympathetic light. If you are at all interested in doing so.

[CarolAnn 926]

Im itching to get out of America! And I'm 16 at a catholic high school which makes it so much worse. I cant say Im proud of spending half my teen years in the '00s. By what I see, most Americans believe it is immoral to disobey the government. Is Spain nice?

 

Getting out of the Catholic high school would probably suffice. They tend to be a bubble. Spain is a predominantly Catholic nation, by the way.

 

You need to define what you mean to "disobey the government." Kill someone? Yes, that is wrong. Protest the government's decisions and positions? Plenty of people do that all the time. I spent most of the last administration doing that.

 

You have no control about what decade you grow up in, so there is no need to be ashamed or proud of that. I finished raising my kids in the last decade and I think it was better than the 1980's, which is when I came of age.

 

Yea I knew about Spain's religions. And thats not what I meant. I mean for example, do you refrain from murdering someone in fear of the government or do you refrain because you know it wont get you anywhere better. Its just America's allegiance to these people in DC that scares me. I never believed that having leaders would make for a successful "team". If we just cut off this system, I believe everyone could live the life they want. But they have everyone spellbound, implying things like "money is necessary for a good life" and "if you dont listen to us, American Airlines will come and attack your hometown."

 

Your words make me wonder how conservative your parents are and what circles you move in with them.

 

In my circles, some people are ridiculously bound to the government and others are anarchists. Most, however, are in the middle - they tend to realize the government is necessary but believe it should be watched closely.

 

America began in revolt, and this has colored our perceptions of government. We could get into a long conversation about anarchy, but most people recognize that some level of government is necessary to the functioning of a society. If nothing else, someone has to do the paperwork. The difference comes in, as on this thread, with how much government is necessary.

 

Ideally, I will grant you, people shouldn't kill simply because it is morally wrong. Unfortunately there is this little thing called "human nature" and it tends to bring out the worst in many people. There is also the example of the latest financial crisis - it clearly illustrates that people don't generally act in the best interest of society as a whole.

 

I am impressed by your level of thought at 16 - are you at a Jesuit school?

[CarolAnn 926]

You obviously do, I clearly don't - which more or less reflects the mainstream American and European ways of observing governmental actions. My argument was that it's a paranoid way of looking at your government, while many of your compatriots tend to be so optimistic about your system. That optimism instigated the neo-conservative drivel that led your army to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I think this is where the communication breaks down.

 

As I said to EST.1993, the American view of centralized government is strongly colored by our beginnings as a country. Our underpinnings (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) were written by men who threw off the most powerful government in the world at that time. We tend to see government as a necessary evil - something that needs to handle issues of the country as a whole. However, the Constitution clearly states that all rights and responsibilities not explicitly assigned to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states. This was a defense to the federal government gaining too much power and a clear attempt to keep power and influence at the local level.

 

Amending the Constitution is fiendishly difficult as well:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

A weaker centralized government and more powerful local government is our system.

 

As far as the neo-conservative drivel of the last administration, we are as susceptible as anyone else to reactionary behavior. Had the World Trade Centers not been destroyed, I doubt Bush and his crew would have had any lasting impact on the world. It's more a case of being in the right place at the right time than anything else.