[mdlug-discuss] health care (was: Iraq stuff again)

[Wolfger]

On 3/27/07, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Wolfger wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Feel free to provide examples. I don't have to cross a national border
> >> an example of the sort of future socialized medicine inexorably evolves
> >> towards: Walter Reed.
> >
> > Rubbish! You pick one sensationalistic example from the headlines
> >
> Actually, I provided three examples


Sorry, I must have missed the other two. Walter Reed and which other two?

> How many military hospitals are there that *aren't* making headlines for
> > being atrocious?
> Got a name?


No. Funny, but the facilities that do their jobs adequately never make the
news.

> Why are they not examples, in your mind, of how socialized
> > medicine works?
> Why are what not examples?


These unnamed facilities that aren't making the news, because they are doing
adequate or better jobs.

> Mind you, the U.S. military has been on this sort of
> > "socialized medicine" since the dawn of its existence. Doesn't seem to
> be
> > working too badly, or they'd have changed it, no?
> If you get news of how awful the system is punctuated by long periods of
> no news that doesn't mean the system is working like a Swiss watch up
> until a few minutes before the most recent discovery of the shortcomings
> of the system. It just means no one's been looking.


Good point! But neither is a single incident necessarily indicative of
system-wide failure.

>> I think the answer is that it's *not* a disaster everywhere it's been
> >> > tried.
> >> OK, where's that?
> >
> > No. Proof of a negative is, as you are probably aware, impossible.
> I suppose but what does that have to do with coming up with a single,
> unequivocal example of the splendors of socialized medicine?


I never said "splendors" existed. I merely doubted your claim that
"everywhere" is a "disaster".

> You are claiming it *is* a disaster everywhere, so I lay the burden
> > of proof at your feet. I want country by country documentation of these
> > disasters you claim.
> Talk about sending someone on a fool's errand.


I'm only asking you to substantiate your claim. I don't think that's
unreasonable. If something is a disaster, there is necessarily some proof
that a disaster exists (or occurred).

> You prefer the *current* system of haves and have nots? Socialized
> > medicine
> > would create more haves, and fewer have nots. Why do you oppose that?
> >
> Sure. The current system doesn't make access to medical care a function
> of political power which I find much more sinister and worrying then
> access to medicine governed by wealth.


I'm not sure there's much difference between political power and wealth.
Have you looked at the cost of running for office lately? It exceeds the
gross income received from the office. There are extremely few, if any, poor
people in politics, and I doubt you'll find any millionaires (excepting
those who win lottery jackpots) who aren't politically powerful.

> At least we agree that government meddling created this mess. We just
> > can't agree on the best solution. Heck, I don't even know what the best
> > solution is... I'm just countering some rather poor arguments that
> you're making,
> > because I hate poor arguments. :-D
> >
> So your solution is a medical system which consists entirely of
> "government meddling"? Talk about rather poor, and unexamined, arguments.


LOL. I disagree, of course. Removal of "government meddling" is idealistic
and unrealistic. It won't happen. Therefore, other options must be found.
Total government control may indeed be better than mere government tinkering
and influence.

Socialized medicine, indeed socialized anything, makes putting bad
> choices right more difficult because socialism concentrates power in the
> hands of the few and people with power will find all sorts of rationales
> to avoid relinquishing that power when they have to bother with
> rationales at all.


Excellent! You need to make more good points like that. I am, if you haven't
figured it out yet, "on the fence" with this issue. Your previous arguments
were actually pushing me towards the other side. Now you've made a couple
really good arguments in your favor.

> Because the number of uninsured is fast approaching
> > (if not already there) a majority in our democracy.
> Forty-three million isn't anywhere near a majority and even that
> number's inflated.


I'd like to know your rationale for calling it inflated. I suspect you
merely believe it is because you wish it to be so. As for "nowhere near a
majority", here are the voter turnout figures for the last 5 national
elections:
85 million
124 million
80 million
107 million
75 million
I think 43 million is darned close to a majority. In fact, in
non-presidential elections, it would be a majority.

> Do you place more faith
> > in democracy, or capitalism?
> > (a true "lesser of two evils" situation)
> >
> I think, both, since democracy and capitalism are two faces of the same
> coin.


Ha! Democracy is political structure and capitalism in economic structure.
You've already stated your belief that the two are not the same... (and I
stated they were, and now we are both flip flopping on our other statements)
A true democracy is not capitalistic unless the people wish it to be so. Of
course, we do not have a true democracy.... Likewise, capitalism can survive
in other political models as well (such as our own).



-- 
Wolfger
http://randomsynapsefiring.eponym.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070327/cf65b339/attachment-0001.html>