Universal Health Care & Moore
Offline Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, you can easily recognize false journalism and oversimplified, distorted "facts" of Michael Moore. Not only does his ugly, fat face disgust me, but his form of "documentary" is so riddled with lies, circular logic, oversimplified views and overdone Bush hatred it turns into "liberal" propaganda and shock footage way more than open-minded, rational claims.
My film teacher had us watch "Sicko" and thought it was brilliant. He was completely convinced by Moore. My sister and I were skeptical about the entire film, so we did research on Moore and universal health care and realize what a crock of shit Moore is. While I know the health care system is flawed and needs to be changed, I strongly disagree that making universal health care an option will fix anything. If anything, it will create more problems.
I know for sure that some of you are for universal health care in America. I personally am against it for many reasons, including
- Countries like France and Britain have very high taxes for medical care, so it is not actually "free" and would not be so in the USA either. Furthermore, France and Britain are smaller, less diverse countries where something like universal health care is possibly easier to put into use. However, it is not so peachy there as Moore makes it out to be. Canadians, for instance, often come to the US for simple procedures because their system forces patients to wait over 6 months for something like a pap smear. Check this out:
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4059652
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369/
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/faces.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2753
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=496&FS=Canadian+Health+Care
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/hawke.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/austwotier.html
- Universal health care = tax increase explode. Is it worth it to cut AIDs research or our already
- Why would someone invest extensive time and money go to college, medical school, work hard and train for many years only so the government would tell them where to live and work? I don't think so. This chain would produce more less qualified doctors and would restrain our freedom to choose a doctor. Though most good doctors DO operate to help others, profit motives and competition are far more likely to increase effectiveness and cost control.
- I hardly trust the government with controlling anything, let alone something so complex as health care.
- Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
- Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits. They are already sky-high, and universal health care would only increase them to expose legal liability and to gain more from deep pockets.
- Who is to say what will be covered? What about plastic surgery, lasik eye surgery and other procedures that could be needed for either health or cosmetic purposes? I smell a political battle.
- Total costs for health care will double.
"Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections." -bannedpolitics.org
I'm all for economic freedom. I do not want the government telling me who my doctor is, what I can do and what I can't. People come from all over the world for our medical care. It ain't perfect, but it's pretty damn good. We need more creative solutions that will allow for choice and liberty but will also help sort out some big flaws in our current system.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
Art thou Canadian? I for one live under Hurricane hazel near Square One, oh where art thou located.
Forgive the Shakespearia but I do try to keep track of fellow Canucks, we might be needed for a good protest once in a while in the GTA.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I'm in Edmonton, AB. Pretty far removed from most of my fellow Canadians here.
Stupid big, fat country...
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Peppermint, I had X-rays before the chiropractor , I could see the twists and turns of my own spine; right where the pain was, after chiropractic treatments I had another X-ray; the spine was straight, the pain was gone and I was one inch taller. MattShizzle ( who I kinda like ) is way off base here.
Based on Thirty years (30) experience I recommend Chiroprators, whole heartedly, does MattShizzle have a steady job, of thirty years or at least close to it?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Knowing you are from out west I will try to speak slower, from now on. Square One is in Mississauga Ontario just outside of To ron to. That is Mississauga not Mister sauga, eh?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Careful, buddy boy. We've got all your fuel held hostage here!
...Even if sometimes we mess-up our wurds.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Chiropractors aren't exactly "new". And there are studies out there that do show that they are are doing harm for some, perhaps as many as they help. Not to mention they take your money and anything fraudulent should be looked.
I'm not suggesting don't try new things, but I am suggesting to know about things that there is evidence and research for.
I don't think, unless desperate, there is any reason why I would submit myself to being a test subject for medical treatments without them having been tested.
I'm also not an expert on the subject of Chiroprators but if there is studies and evidence to suggest it doesn't help and can harm in the long-term, should I not at least know those risks even if I am seeing short-term pain relief?
I'm not suggesting that Chriopractic therapy does not work, as I am not well enough read on the subect, I just know that it's success and long-term impacts are under question.
That said, it's not in the realm of something like homeopathy.
I can imagine Spine problems being one of the few things that Chiropracty would actually work on.
I think that the BS associated with Chiropracty is due to the rogues who start claiming that all problems are down to mis-aligned spine.
I think that if you want to see where the 'haters' are coming from, watch this episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
What is wrong with a voluntary system? If you don't want to receive any benefits, you just don't pay the insurance premiums. A private nonprofit insurance system would do the job just as well as government. Why must you put a gun to people's heads and force them to pay for other people's insurance premiums? That doesn't seem respectful of people's freedom.
Seems like you only want to have social respect be a value only for the rich, successful and those who have obtained good jobs. It can't work that way, all relationships must be a two way street. The poor need to have social respect by working to get good jobs, waiting to have children until they can afford them and not being a burden to society.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Idealism versus Reality, which one will win?
A private company will do anything it can to get out of paying out. That's the nature of business. Health is, or should be, an essential service.
The whole point of a socialized system is a redistrubtion of wealth so 'opting out' of it would obviously imply that all people would 'opt out' of it so that they didn't need to fund the ones that need it.
Respectful of peoples freedoms? I'm sorry, I just don't see your right to have an extra couple bucks in your pocket as more important than another persons right to live.
Then we hit on your last sentance which is simply a case of your ideal versus the reality of the situation which is simply nothing like what you believe is right.
What is it, 20% of all children are born into poverty in the US? Why not make sure those kids have education and health care growing up so that rather then them lacking an education they need to be successful high end contributors to society. Only children of wealthy parents are the ones that deserve to be successful? I guess it's a bad time to also point out that the wealthy don't actually produce enough children much less the country as a whole which is why both the US and Canada are reliant on immigration to fill jobs.
The view that health care and education are only given to those that can afford it is simply a short sighted view. Imagine if a guy like Hawking was born in an average family in the US. I can't imagine he'd be the man he is today. There are great minds to be harnessed in that 20% of the future population that aren't growing up with ideal circumstances and are destined to be uneducated, unhealthy, and impoverished unless they 'defeat the odds' which not all of them can.
Educate and take care of them, and you will have a dramatically higher percentage of successful people making the country stronger, the economy stronger, the talent pool stronger, making the dollar more valuable making the rich, richer.
And with some rather average planning you can do it without increasing taxes at all just by redirecting badly spent money to proper places.
I'm really surprised, with this group, that more people are not able to see the selfish benefits to apparent altruism.
That why I said non-profit insurance, it just pays out the same as what it takes in. The same as government program except people can go with another organization if the service and premiums suck. Government can suck and people don't have an option to leave.
Well then why work/study hard for those few extra buck, if there just going to be taken away and I get the same benefits no matter what one does? Seems like your living in a ideal world where people will work for free. Do we then need force slavery so others will live?
You have an idealism where the rich and sucessful should hapilly submit to having their wealth taken from them to fund any expensive medical procedure for the poor. If they don't submit, put a gun to their head and take their wealth. It would be the same to force the poor to be sterilized until they can afford heath insurance. You just would rather force the rich to do something against their will than the poor.
I am in favor of the government funding education because it does in the long run benefit the people being taxed to pay for it. And the people receiving the benefits should eventually pay it back. But the poor have a responsibility to take advantage of the educational opportunities to get a good job. One case where I would support government health insurance for a poor person would be if they were in college working toward getting a degree in a career that could produce wealth.
I also could support government funded medical research if it can be demonstrated to benefit all classes of people. But unlimited health services for poor, lazy people that just copulate and make more poor babies, no way. Sterilization should be their only health service.
This ideal of unconditional redistribution of wealth is shown to be a cancer on society. You can't have social responsibility only for one class in society, because the rest of society just turns into a cancer. I think you are not living in reality if you don't see this to be the case.
How about government paid health care for anyone who agrees to be sterilized(temporary) and enter a college or other job training program?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Here's where your argument breaks down, as I see it. There are *many* working poor in America. They work hard, often two or three jobs, and often don't have employer-funded health insurance, and can't afford health insurance on their own. Not all poor people are lazy. In fact, in my experience, the majority of poor people are not lazy.
As they are poor, their options are restricted, as are the options of their children. As middle- and upper-class Americans, we had many more opportunities growing up than a person growing up below the poverty line, such as superior education, access to better health care, parents that were at home more often, since they generally only worked one decently-paying job, rather than three poorly-paying jobs, and so on.
My wife was regional director of a welfare-to-work program. And though there were some leeches, just as you suggest, they were by far in the minority. One of her catholic case workers once said of one of them, "Even Jesus hates that woman." So yes, the stereotype does apply to a few. But not to all. Not by a long shot.
Those of us with minor-to-major socialist tendencies tend to notice that the system fails a large number of people. It's not the people that are failing: it's the system. If service seems bad, or people seems lazy, perhaps it's because they've learned that it doesn't matter -- that working hard doesn't get you ahead. All it does is make you old and tired.
The fact that there are classes in society is part of the problem in the first place. Those with money and power game the system to maintain their money and power, while those with no power are helpless to change it at all. And then when nothing gets done to help them, they get hopeless.
Both descriptions, yours and mine, are vast oversimplifications of a complex social problem. Neither one of us are completely correct, and neither is completely false. Socialism as a political model doesn't work as an ideal. Capitalism as an economic model does not work as an ideal. They are both subject to central control -- in the case of socialism, it tends to be built in. For capitalism, it's controlled by those with concentrated economic power.
As for your assertion that the market distributes wealth to those who earn it by hard work:
60% of the wealth in America is controlled by less than 5% of the population. Do you honestly believe that 5% of Americans account for 60% of the productive work?
The poorest 50% of Americans have only 10% of the wealth. Do you honestly believe that half of America is essentially unproductive?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
What exactly is non-profit versus government controlled? Are you talking about 100% funded by government and taxes but still a third party company? So you'd have a series of companies around that provide different service but all charge exactly the same and make no profit? Would they be competing for customers investing money into advertising etc? What other industries are run in such a way? What is the point? Isn't it more economical to unify them? Is it also not easier to implement regulations in such a way? Buy less 'unique' equipment?
Because you still make a lot of extra money? We're not talking about all money, we're talking about a shaving off the top just as you already pay and everyone already does pay. And not everyone does receive the same benefit in most countries that have socialized health care. To receive the 'best' services, in Canada anyways, you need a good extended health care plan.
In British Columbia I pay a big $54 a month for my premiums. As an individual, that is the maximum that I can pay. A family of 3 or more that is making $25k a year or more will pay a maximum of $108 a year. Doctors, Nurses, and other health professionals all get paid.
So you can study all you want and work all you want, but $54 is just too much of a monthly cost to not only cover your own medical expenses but that of everyone? Instead, you'd rather pay out thousands a year in insurance costs just so you can avoid someone taking advantage of the system? You know that people already do that with the systems you have in place right?
People take advantage of all systems, private or public. Some people just suck.
This is not about living in an ideal world at all, this is about living in the country where I currently live.
It is also important to realize that 20% of the future US population does not have a choice about the situation they are born into.
The rich do happily submit to paying more in taxes and more in health costs already. The difference is not in the money they spend, but rather where it goes.
And I'm sure someone with a multi-million dollar salary can afford the $54 a month.
I hope you are aware that sterilization is not even an option, so why discuss it like it's a legit argument? You have to work with what you have. If you want to start a sterilization movement, go for it. I'm not neccessarily opposed to it. Assuming you're providing the opportunity for people to excel by providing them the health and medical coverage they need to become successful. Sure the population with plummit, and immigration would become 100% required just to survive as a country due to the birth rate probably cutting off into the 25% of what it is now range.
Healthcare also has a long run benefit to the people being taxed to pay for it. They are already being taxed to pay for it, their money just isn't being used well.
It is not a child's fault that they are born into poverty. The aggressive stance you take against the poor is counter-productive. It is not realistic, and ends up creating more poor. Providing education and health care from the get-go for all people allows those children to go up in a safe environment with an education to give them a chance at being successful. Making sure that they aren't dieing from simple things like the flu simply because the mother can't afford healthcare.
Your generalization that all poor people are lazy and just copulate is categorically incorrect and simply besides the point. By providing basic social services you are able to attack poverty itself. This selfish view of how things should work is not self-productive it encourages poverty rather than solves it.
As for unconditional redistrubition of wealth being a cancer...you already have this happening on so many levels from police, fire departments, libraries, courts, government workers, etc etc etc. These are all forms of unconditional redistribution of wealth. Not every bit of socialization implies flying the red flag.
As for your last note about college / job training: this doesn't help the 1 year old with the flu. It doesn't help the teenager that simply made a mistake.
Poverty, as a whole, is a complex problem but there are a ways to attack poverty, and in turn attack crime, and that's by making sure that people have their basic needs met. Many people are forced into poverty as a result of the medical system in the US because their insurance company simply would not pay for their procedures or would not cover them in the first place.
Animosity towards the poor is not productive, it doesn't solve the social problems, and it does not help wealthy people earn more wealth.
Countries all over the world have been very successful with socialized healthcare plans. The US has the economic power to do better than all of those countries by simply using the money that it already has. Instead it has people, such as yourself, that would rather fight for the rights of people that profiteer off the health of others not realizing that there is a lot for you to gain from this apparent group altruism.
To me one of the biggest signs that there is a problem in the ecnomical classes in the US is the simple fact that a man going from poor to rich earns a movie with Will Smith.
The fact that this is so rare that a single story gets put on the big screen is simply a big fat highlighter over the issue that the transition is not happening enough. It should be happening every day.
The government's only role should be to regulate the enforcement of insurance contracts. Credit Unions were created to get around the excessive profits that banks made. Have non-profit insurance where the premium payers are essentially shareholders in the organization and would have a vote on what benefits to provide and premiums to pay.
Government run health care sucks because if the service and costs are high, the goverment just forces people to pay more. No consumer choice.
OK then, why don't people that feel like you and Nigil just start a charity and pay a little money to take care of the all indigent poor? You claim it's not that much. Why must you force people like me to pay, that feel unconditional welfare for the poor is bad for society. It destorys the work ethic and causes the rich and industry to take their wealth and jobs elsewhere.
It seems to me that liberals and socialists are extremely generous with other people's money, but not so much their own.
I could care less about the profit insurance companies, drug companies and others make. If you don't like them, don't buy their services or invest in a competitor. I just want the freedom to choose what I want. I also don't have animosity toward the poor unless they don't work to get out of their situation and believe they are entiled to burden others with the problems they create.
Yes there is a problem with the rich getting their wealth throught the exploitation and pollution of the earth's natural resources. But fix this problem and don't burden everyone that works hard to gain their wealth with poor people that have no sense of social responsibility.
Your wish is to eventually have a society where everyone has a high level of social responsibilty. Great, but then you reward people with zero responsiblity with all kinds of welfare. Then punish with high taxes the people resonsible to get a good education and work. How is this dream ever going to be realized with your backwards values?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
[edit]
Sorry. I hit the "post" button by accident, with no real content. Here's the real post.
Hold on, now. I believe I've stated a couple of times that socialization isn't the best answer. While I do claim that social programs should be in place to help, I don't believe that is the answer. It's merely a band-aid.
I give to charity, specifically those that help the underserved. (Habitat for Humanity is one I like quite a bit.)
I recognize that poverty and crime are also a blight on society, that make the rich take their economic clout elsewhere, as well. Removing poverty isn't a matter of treating the symptoms, such as welfare and socialized medicine, but programs like that allow us to relieve the pressure while we try to fix society itself.
The programs are far from perfect, and would hopefully be able to be dismantled, or at least scaled back so they are there only when absolutely needed.
That's what I've been trying to tell you: many can't work to get out of their situation. Oh, they work, all right -- ten and twelve hour days, in many cases. The cost of living is such that they can't get anywhere. They can't afford college. Hell, they didn't even get a decent primary and secondary education, because they were raised in poor neighborhoods.
The cards are stacked against a large segment of the population. When the people who work at Wal*Mart can't even afford to shop at Wal*Mart, there's a big problem.
And your evidence that this stereotype applies to all poor is....?
About 15% of Americans do not have health insurance. About 5% of Americans don't work. Does that mean that 10% of Americans just don't want health insurance? Or maybe it's that they can't afford it, even though they are busting their ass every day trying to make ends meet?
Again, it's not strictly a matter of taking responsibility. It's also partially a matter of unequal opportunity. This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Yes, there are some welfare queens out there. But for many, if it weren't for food stamps, they'd never be able to survive on their minimum-wage job pushing a broom at a multi-billion dollar a year corporation.
No, socialism isn't the answer. But neither is calling all those living at or below the poverty line "irresponsible," and penalizing them for being born into poverty. That's like those folks who say of rape victims, "Did you see how she was dressed? She was asking for it." People working two part-time jobs just to keep a run-down apartment and food on the table don't ask for it.
There are serious problems here, some of which are directly attributable to the brand of capitalism practiced in the United States.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Okay i thought i would bring in Bernie Sanders (Socialist Democrat) and Steven Colbert (Presidential Canidate) and let you listen to them argue both sides for a couple of minutes...
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=166722
This aired last night and i thought it would be a good addition to the thread...
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC would you quit with the bullshit!!! Don't you get it Hard work = poor. Lazy and lucky= rich. Is there a problem with business in Europe? Why not protect everyone. Make the rich support the poor. If they leave the country, refuse to let them do business in the US or have like 500% tariffs. Maybe also refuse to trade with any country that does business with them if they do that. Also confiscate all their assets in country with no compensation to the owners before they can move - natonalization of corporate assets would work. Maybe arrest the executives, too. Almost anything would be better than the current system where the rich can do whatever they want and the poor get exploited and screwed working for next to nothing with no insurance.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You're asking me, a person who lives in a country that has laws that already provide those social services to put my money where my mouth is?
I already am thank you.
Saw it last night, thought it was entertaining...not really so much 'argument' from Colbert though =P
Don't get education, dysfunctional family, get knocked up when Teenager, pass on to next generation = poor.
Know how to invest, know how to protect wealth, careful about pregnancy, pass on to next generation = rich.
If a capitalist society is so bad, why don't you defect to Cuba? Why is all the human traffic from Cuba one way? You've voted with your feet for USA capitalism, haven't you?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
To add on to the 5%/15% noted by Nigel...
What is the average cost of insurance in the US? How much does it cost for 'some' coverage versus 'decent' coverage versus 'good coverage?
What % of the population is paying for coverage given to them under false pretenses in that if they ever claimed something the insurance company would investigate to find a way out of paying it due to a 'pre-existing' symptom or some stupid unrelated minor illness not being listed?
How much taxpayer money on top of that is currently being put into the health system?
What is the average, per capita, health investment by individuals on a yearly basis (including what people pay and what taxes pay for)?
What is the profit margin currently being made on an average diagnosis from the point of profit being made by a physician, to being sent in for x-rays, to being given a surgery, or perhaps just medication that has its priced jacked up through the roof?
In Canada our meds are considered cheap compared with the US. Interestingly enough, drug companies still make a fortune here. What does that mean they are doing down there?
Where there is a breakdown in communication EXC is simply perspective.
From your perspective you see "rich deserve to do whatever they want and people can earn something if they don't already have it".
What if water suddenly had a cost associated to it. Would you let people dehydrate to death if they were incapable of work or just couldn't afford water? Make them choose between a house or water? Between food or water?
To me the providing of health care, education, protection services (police / fire), are essential services to the fabric of a well functioning advanced society which focuses on the success of it's future as much as the success of the present. It's not simply a matter of providing people with something they don't deserve, it's something I think that shouldn't be in the discussion of what is 'earned'.
Welfare has it's place but I don't think anyone should be entitled to it. It's a service to help people get on their feet and support people incapable of providing for themselves (work for welfare or welfare for work whatever it's called I'm not a fan of). It's intent is temporary and under constant review.
I don't think we take away access to education because a student isn't performing well enough. Investment, by a country, into education (including early childhood education) pays off in the future. It is a good investment in more talented individuals with more economic power later in life. Without providing access to education to all people, regardless of their income, we only force people into lives of criminal behavior. I don't see providing health care as any less necessary to the fabric of society as education, and protection services. It's not about giving money to the poor. I am still going to be wealthy, they are still going to be poor. It's not like we are talking about giving them a playstation despite their laziness. This is giving them the capability to work by providing them with the good health that they need. And making sure that the people great for our economy (the middle class) don't get price driven into poverty to the point that they are no longer helping the economy just because they had to deal with a stiff medical bill.
So, ya, it's a perspective difference. You see health as, apparently, a frivolous bonus that people get when they have lots of money. I see it as a core necessity to the fabric of a strong society.
No, I don't. I've said the rich and industry don't pay enough for access to natural resources they use and pollution they create. I believe if you honestly earn a living through hard work, you should enjoy the fruits of your labor.
I think with modern technology, there are very people incapable of work(charity could take care of them). I'm all for rehabilitating and retraining workers. Society makes a contract with them. But you want to give health care and welfare to people that don't want to give anything back to society, just fuck and make more poor bastards.
Society does have to make these choices. It should go to the contributors. If someone works to create solutions to water shortages, they must be rewarded.
No, I just see the world for what it is. There are limited resources and society can not function if resources are continually diverted to the least productive members, that contribute nothing in return and can breed without restriction. You will not have any society if you continue to do this.
Medical advances keep getting more and more expensive. To pay for these, difficult choices must be made.
If an organ in your body gets cancer, do you cut it out or cut off it's blood supply. Or do you continue to feed it and let it grow even though the cancer contributes nothing and just sucks nutrition from the blood? What happens if you don't cut off the supply?
As evolution proceeded to create complex organisms, cells became specialized at contributing to the body? But each cell needed to contribute something in order to get something back in return. If cells that didn't contribute were allowed to exist, the animal would not survive.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Perhaps those that control the resources are greedy, and don't allow those without resources to partake. A cancer sucks up resources and starves surrounding tissue; perhaps it's the rich that are the cancer. (I don't believe so, but I don't believe the poor are a cancer, either.)
The US has plenty of resources, natural and economic, but they are distributed mostly among the top 5%. I'm not suggesting we take it away from the top 5%. I am suggesting we examine the problems with society that allowed the top 5% to gain control of those resources in the first place, and perhaps address the actual problems (education and equitable wages, to start with). As control of resources is the essence of economic power, the top 5% have the economic power to maintain control, and even increase their control and ownership, as is happening in the United States.
I definitely agree we need to find better ways to help the poor become productive members of society. Part of that is actually rewarding them, rather than paying wages that are barely subsistence, while paying CEOs $100 million to leave a company, after paying tens of millions a year. We have an extremely skewed view of the worth of individuals, and we reward the top 2% way out of line with their actual contributions, while paying the bottom 10% wages that barely allow them to survive. It's not that they aren't working. It's that they aren't being compensated equitably for their work.
There is an imbalance of economic distribution, partially caused by the continuous increase in the economic and political power of corporations. The percentage of the population living in poverty has been on the rise since 2000, after a decline in the Clinton years. Currently, about 12.6% of the US lives at or below the poverty line. For a single person, that's $10,000. For two parents and a kid, that's $18,000. I know my wife and I couldn't survive as we do on $18,000 a year, and we don't even have a kid. I can't imagine what the quality of life must be for someone who brings home only $10k a year, single or not.
Anyway, my point is simply this: you're blaming the victims. Sure, some of them really are lazy, and have no sense of social responsibility. But the numbers belie the idea that all of them are, or even most of them. By stating that they shouldn't have children, you are basically saying they don't have the same range of options that those who are being paid a decent wage have. I agree -- they don't. I don't have the same range of options as Mukesh Ambani or Carlos Slim. And to a large degree, all we can say is, "Suck it up, Buttercup." That's the way life is.
But you might at least consider that the decreased range of options is also a decrease in opportunity. You might also consider that the disparity of pay between the poorest and the richest wage earners is part of the problem, such that the rich are able to stay rich, and the poor are unable to even become middle-class. (As an aside, the middle class has been shrinking, as a percentage of the population. Does that mean the US is getting lazier in general?)
It's interesting to compare where the United States stands in relation to other countries using the Gini index. We are essentially the worst of the developed nations. Sure, we're beaten out by China and Mexico. But we're far above most of the developed world.
The index has been increasing since we started measuring it in 1967, when it was 39.7. It has increased to 47.0 last year. So, the saying, "The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer," is essentially true, at least in the United States. That doesn't leave much room for economic self-improvement for those at the bottom.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I'm from the UK and I think the NHS is great, not only in principle but, generally speaking in practice. Sure there are problems with it but the fact that the poorest people in society don't have to fear extreme debt, and have access to fantastic healthcare when they're ill is actually worth the high taxes. See in Britain many of us are in favour of having higher taxes if we have access to such fantastic public services. What we don't like is when our money is wasted, not the principle of high tax, particularly when tax is directed more at the wealthy and less at the poor.
As for Michael Moore, I usually agree with his sentiments even if I don't agree with his arguments.
Atheist Books
Well this is interesting to me how Canadians have this attitude. Canada is a huge land mass with seemingly unlimited resources. Since the overall population density is low, for now the resources of Canada can be mined to pay for medical procedures and welfare for everyone. So this idealist model works as long as the natural resources don't run out. That will change someday.
Maybe you Canadians need to live in a country like Haiti for a while. There the island is out land to grow, resources to mine. There are terrible food shortages, so every last penny needs to be used to purchase food for the citizens. Now in a place like this, if there are people that need expensive medical procedures and transplants, you think the government needs to take the money from food, education, police, infrastructure and pay for every one's medical procedure no matter how expensive?
With globalization, Canada can not continue with unconditional welfare handouts. They will have to either stop welfare or stop population growth.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I love that your posts totally ignore my commentary on children and making sure that they don't perpetuate the problem.
Hey now, watch the "you Canadians", especially when some of us are on your side (to some degree). We find ourselves in a unique position in Canada, in that we've made best friends with the biggest deal in town, that being supplying the US with oil. We also have a small fraction of the population that's in the US, so we can make price stability look like it's working a lot better than our American counterparts. So while on one hand, I can appreciate the ideal of helping all the poor, the reality of the Canadian situation is not quite as shiny as some like Moore would have some people believe.
We already have NGOs looking after the gaps left by the government, just like in the US. Hospitals still require sizeable private donation in order to function, and family doctors are exceedingly hard to find. It's my contention that doctor's services would be more available if there was a private system, but the issue of poverty does raise its ugly head almost immediately. Unfortunately, the truth is that poverty is, and always will be, a problem.
I know that seems cold. I've had shitty, go-nowhere jobs, so my idealism when it comes to a kind of Austrian-school economics tends to get tempered by knowing what it feels like to be in that situation. But truthfully, that situation will always exist. Only those who are willing to take large risks will be rewarded. Obviously some people are just lucky, and inherit. I'm with Warren Buffett in thinking there should be an inheritance tax. You want equality? There's a good place to start.
But managing the problem of poverty should be voluntary. In saying that, I may seem heartless, except that it would seem I have more faith in humanity than the socialist. People, for the most part, actually do care about the dire situation of others. The wealthy people I know are all volunteers and philanthropists. Not for the tax break, which is negligible compared to those of capital gains, but because they genuinely care.
But feel free to take my position with a grain of salt. I'm of the opinion that the government is like a protection racket, and the ideal of republic and parliament has been screwed over by legislating the current illegitimate form of the corporation. So I don't tend to be welcome on either side of the argument.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Some children will suffer one way or another. There are no population controls, under education and limited resources so this situation is unavoidable. Children will suffer and die no matter what you do. You only believe that government can keep always children from suffering because you live in Canada where the natural resources can be mined to pay for welfare.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Are we talking now, or in 1000 years?
Right now, there are more than an abundant amount of resources. The fact that there are the resources available that there are in the US and the fact that these problems still exist is silly. It is very difficult to transition from poor to middle class when there is no middle class. Without a middle class, it is essentially impossible to transition from lower to upper class. You work to fight for a job so you can pay the basic bills and regardless of how much one works the costs of housing, food, health care, education, and other basic neccessities simply outweigh the earning ability of someone who does not already have resources.
I have always been strongly opposed to unions, but I can't help but read my own comments and speculate that a strong unionization of the lower class is almost neccessary to change the compensation amounts as this problem continues to grow.
The problem is not about laziness, breeding, etc. It is more than likely a simple case of people not being appropriatly compensated. You have the poor doing all the work to make the wealthy, wealthy. The problem with this kind of mentality (unionization) is that labour in other countries is more readily available than it has been historically. This, essentially, strips the poor of their ability to be compensated at a level to approrpiately fit the economic reality of a 1st world country.
This problem will continue. It's what happens when 10% of the world's population controls 90% of it's resources. Work ethic has nothing to do with it, it's simple numbers. When you have your few holding on to their resources as tightly as they do, there is not an easy way to dip into the 90%...you're going to be far more likely to take from the 10% as you become successful.
I don't care much for MattShizzles approach, but it's hard to deny that his mind set towards the rich is almost inevitable. As resources become thinner and people start actually staring starvation, drought, and other problems in the face it's only natural that they will lash out at those that have it.
I find the selfishness factor fascinating. It's been taken to an extreme that is way beyond sensible not only forcing it's own species into horrific lifestyles just so they can survive, but also destroying the world at the same time and further limiting those resources.