New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[paddoboy]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
As for ObamaCare - yes, Public Healthcare will be as good as all the other 'Social Services' the State provides - like our Public Housing, Public Schooling, Public Roads, Public Toilets, etc.. It will be overly expensive and of poor quality.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What a negative obviously prejudice view to take.
I for one congratulate Obama and the USA for finally making some effort to have Universal health care....
We in Australia had it implemented in 1972/3 by our greatest ever PM Gough Whitlam and his Labor party after 23 years of conservative government.
Our's is simply a levy on annual earnings of 1.5% for low and middle income earners and 2.5% for higher income earners.
The extra 1% levy can be waived if private insurance is taken out.

Just to add....
Just before our recent elections, the governemnt under Gillard/Rudd has implemented a disabilities scheme, to care for, provide services to all with disabilities including carers, parents of disabled children etc financed by a 1% levy on earnings on top of the Medicare deductions.
That Labor government was ousted because of eternal bickering, but the newly elected Liberals, would dare not dismantle either Medicare and/or the new Disabilities scheme.
They would be quickly shot out on their ear!!!
Our conservatives in other words has accepted the social reforms established by previous Labor governments

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

It's a joke. Do you not know "the ONION? While it is beyond doubt Secretary Sebelius really botched the website development and deployment, it doesn't mean Obamacare is bad law or that the program will not be successful. All the data thus far indicates Obamacare will be a very successful program in spite of the botched website deployment.

Gotcha again.

 

[joepistole]

Gotcha again.

LOL, you are always good for a belly laugh. Thanks Geoff. But you might want to consider taking your meds, your insecurity and neurosis is showing yet again.

 

[GeoffP]

LOL, you are always good for a belly laugh. Thanks Geoff. But you might want to consider taking your meds, your insecurity and neurosis is showing yet again.

This is hilarious. You're now denying what you wrote, even when confronted with a copy of same. I'm fascinated, especially as you mention the word "neurosis". In what way do you think you're correct here? How does it work for you? I'm keen to know.

 

[joepistole]

This is hilarious. You're now denying what you wrote, even when confronted with a copy of same. I'm fascinated, especially as you mention the word "neurosis". In what way do you think you're correct here? How does it work for you? I'm keen to know.

Yes it is hilarious but not for the reasons you ascribe. It is also sad to see a pathetic neurotic play out his neurosis on the internet and try to find comfort therein.
Where have I denied anything? I haven’t. I have denied nothing. What you are doing is playing out your mental illness and inventing a reality to support that illness.

 

[Michael]

Don't be such a silly sanctimonious bleeding heart wanker. And stop stooping and putting words and weird crazy personal interpretations of yours into my mouth, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, I care heaps about people including children in other countries, and the Australian government can only do a limited amount to help them and do that with our overseas aid program.
And myself and my wife also finance two adopted children through World vision, so on a personal level, I also help out to the best of my ability...You???

Getting back on track, my congratulations again to Obama in at least getting the ball rolling on Universal health care in the USA.

I simply find it interesting you think Citizenship, which has no virtue attached to it - it's pure dumb-luck you were stamped with Australia Citizenship at birth and not Saudi Arabian or German or North Korean. This is to say, you had no say in your Citizenship. Yet, through no fault of your own, and no virtue of your own, you feel entitled to something from other people in the world. I find that interesting. Further, while you have no problem paying for shoes and shirts made by poor children in Indonesia, you think your neighbor on the dole (who does nothing to interact with you and is also, through dumb-luck, stamped a similar citizenship) that this person is entitled (to use your word) to so-called 'free' healthcare while these children who work for you - are owed nothing more than the few cents a day they are paid. So, we have one person who does nothing of value, and you think they are entitled to healthcare and we have children who work 14 hours a day for peanuts and they are entitled to nothing. Yet, and here's where the magic thinking comes in, if they were to move to Australia - now they are entitled to free healthcare.

You don't find the moral convolutions astounding from an Ethical perspective?

That aside, a couple points: Prior the United States government 'regulating' healthcare is was of high quality and was so cheap it was nearly free. One more time: Healthcare was CHEAP and UNIVERSAL. There was no healthcare problem - well, unless you were a practitioner and wanted more money. Thus was born the AMA and with it the MD. Soon the 'Public' Universities who were there to educate, were now there to "certify" / State sanction. I think you'll find that when one has a captive monopoly on a market - the quality goes down, while the price goes up. AND this is exactly what has happened.

Instead of dealing with the root of the problem - force/regulation we're going to attempt to use more force. It's like combating rape with more rape.
In steps ObamaCare.
Now, notice I said combating. ObamaCare (force) is combating the medical system establishment (force). ObamaCare is the reaction to force. See, animals do this. They feel caged and so they lash out. Democracy seems to bring this sub-human tendency out in the lay public, mainly by demagogue and sophistry. Which is too bad given we have developed the intellectual means to see past force (not to mention a history of free market voluntarism). Well, we'll see how good rape is at combating rape.

Let's see ObamaCare (a) shifts the costs of medicine from retiring babyboomers (who enjoyed gainful employment and healthcare insurance throughout their lives) on to the backs of their grandchildren (b) those grandchildren are finding it nearly impossible to get full time employment (partly due to ObamaCare) as businesses prefer to hire them at reduced hours (c) and god knows no one wants to hire anyway due to litigation and regulation, and (d) these children are already regulated out of all the markets their grandpartents enjoyed (e) thus sticking them with a mountain of debt - - all of which bequeathed to them from their selfish grandparents who had a predilection for over-indulgence.

I simply said I find this sickening. And it's sad too, because we really could have a cheap universal healthcare if we used free markets and sound money / capital.


One last point: When we practice true free-market capitalism we create more than enough value and capital. We would have more than enough (see: $40 Trillion dollars EXTRA every single year) capital to provide all children 0-18 whose parents didn't have healthcare coverage for them - with healthcare. It'd literally be nothing. Nothing. In general, we're relatively healthy as a people. So, it would be nothing at all when the average wage is $300,000 a year. But, nope, we live in this world. So, in that sense, if we are going to live in a Progressive Fascist State (which we do) then it would be much better to pay for healthcare for children than say to use drones to bomb and murder Iraqi women and children, or use the NSA to spy on US Citizens and German Chancellors. AND, as it stands, Australia directs a lot of their natural resources (kind of like KSA sitting on oil) to ensuring children have healthcare - it's probably one of the best in the world. Does the State do this out of love? No. As mentioned in some other thread - its cost efficient and the State buys in some of the best technology Japan and German can provide them. Of course, the State is going broke and so there has to be both massive immigration as well as selling off all natural resources (and even leasing land outright).

There is a cost for all that "Universal" healthcare + all the other services people expect for 'free' (that's code for selling bonds on children). Thus, IMO the Australia of 2050 is not going to look anywhere near like the Australia of 2000. No more 'She'll be Right'. No more, laid-back beach lifestyle. No way. Most people probably don't know it, but Australians are working much harder than Americans or even Japanese. The laid-back life style is all but gone. All those 'free' services cost you your time. It's not uncommon for Australians to put their children into day supervision facilities from aged 6 weeks old so they can get back to work. And there's some very good evidence this is leading to major psychological problems with those children. If something is being forced onto the public, that should tell you something. That force doesn't come without a cost. A very high cost. Maybe one you don't even know you're paying. But, you are paying.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes it is hilarious but not for the reasons you ascribe. It is also sad to see a pathetic neurotic play out his neurosis on the internet and try to find comfort therein.
Where have I denied anything? I haven’t. I have denied nothing. What you are doing is playing out your mental illness and inventing a reality to support that illness.

So, when you wrote above "Yeah, you keep telling yourself that" when I first pointed out your failure to discern that Michael recognized that The Onion was satire, what you really meant was "Yeah, you should reflect firmly on that point, because you were really on to something there"? This is a fascinating process. I mean, it's hard to tell which way you're trying to go: do you really think you didn't make such a mistake from the start, or were you trying rope-a-dope, or do you think that claiming "I denied nothing" in a sort of Nixonian way means that your earlier comments disappear? There's an amazing amount of intellectual contortion here and I want to figure out where the break-point is for your processing.

 

[Michael]

Our conservatives in other words has accepted the social reforms established by previous Labor governments

I have a question.

This isn't a hypothetical.

An obese man (Patient X) was seen by his cardiologist earlier this year. He's already cost the national healthcare scheme around $1 million dollars (multiple heart attacks - you may not realize it, but those are pretty expensive). Of course this person never paid much into the system. 1.5% across 35 years of working (being generous) he's paid in around $30K. When told he needed to modify his life style he (and I'll quote my friend here) stated: "You can f*ck off mate, I pay me taxes and that pays you to fix me up."

So, my question is: Given Australians are working at maximal efficiency. Most can barely makes ends meet and in terms of personal debt, Australians are in deep. Deeper than most Americans. The tax rate is as high as it can go without seriously undermining the economy. It is agreed that the high minimum wage hurt the economy and made Australians poorer (which is why none of the other socialist nations of the world modeled it). Given it IS uncommon in Australia to have a full-time mother at home raising children and it is not uncommon to have children in daycare from an early age (even as early as 6 weeks). Given immigration (to expand the tax base) is at about the maximum it can be without outright social breakdown due to stress on services. Someone has to pay, and the Nation is at it's limit. Raising the debt ceiling by 66% still has to be paid off (by the young of course). So, again, given these are the facts on the ground: Which social services do you want to see cut so that the coming flood of patient X's can take the thousands of millions of dollars in healthcare services they are entitled to?

I'm genuinely curious.

One area that IS being cut, is higher education. I suppose the logic is, so long as people want to migrate, skilled labor can be imported - and of course is. So, you are right of course, the public would throw the politicians out if their entitlements were cut. But, what is the public knew the true cost that was being paid? That their very society, way of life, future - is the price of those entitlements. Would they be as mad?

Anyway, so, other than higher education and research (given those are cut to the bone) what entitlements do you want to have your government cut in order to provide healthcare to the millions of obese patient X Australians?

 

[Michael]

Where have I denied anything? I haven’t. I have denied nothing.

LOL

The next line I heard was "I AM NOT A CROOK! BBrrraahhhh Brrraaaahhh-Ooooooo" in the Futurama Nixon-head voice.

 

[Michael]

And where do you read that?

If you count lay-over time, I was in transit for over 31 hours. So, I can't tell you. Let's see, these are the magazines I buy: Scientific American, New Scientist, National Geographic, The Economist, The New Yorker, .... it may have been one of those? Or maybe I was half delirious - given I had/have the flu for a little over two weeks?

Anyway, the Washington Times says a minimum of 8 million. However, if I recall correctly, what I was reading also discussed the people expected to join + the numbers of young healthy Americans that are required off-set those expected to join/babyboomers who didn't bother putting anything away for retirement. Obviously it's not just a number of people - but the type of people. Any insurance needs more healthy paying in than sick taking out to be viable.

 

[Michael]

Took twice as long. The USSR made some serious rapid progress there. What was your definition of "progressive" again?

I'm not sure of your point here. Let's assume that society took twice as long - and? This means what exactly?

Yes, the Russians invaded numerous counties and transferred the captured capital to themselves thus becoming the USSR. The Russians then directed all of these stolen resources towards a few goals and achieved those in short order. Of course, having squandered centuries of capital in a short amount of time, it may look like (to an ignorant bystander) as if they had achieved a utilitarian social system. This is incorrect. Their system was not and is not economically viable at any level of complexity. Thus, it wasn't able to sustain itself at any level higher than agrarian. Once it had spent the capital it had stolen, it was done. It'd be like some child inheriting mom and dad's fortune and going balls-to-wall spending to build a wonderful Utopian playground - only to find out after the first roller-coaster the money was gone. Sure, you have a roller-coaster, but so what? It'd be much better to have a slow building up of capital savings in a free-market sustainable economy. Which is what the USA did until we reached a level of prosperity (1960s) whereby this created a massive vacuum in the collective rectal system of the nation sucking most people up into one big collective anus. As such, from inside this anus, things probably look a little weird (See: ObamaCare).

I mean, just read pjdude1219's comment on a profit making hospital - as if this were a bad thing?!? As if a non-profit (no capital savings for improvements) were better. Or maybe he thinks a profit-loosing hospital is better (which is what happened in the USSR/China/E. Germany/N. Korea). In a FREE market making a profit is a GOOD thing. It means those people over there are doing something right. And because people are free to do business with them - it must mean they're doing something people WANT. With the savings they accumulate they're able to do MORE of that thing. And because the market is FREE, other's rapidly start doing the same thing.

Of course we don't live in a free market. Hence, we hate profit because intuitively people know the ones making the profit have gamed the system. The system is so highly regulated, you couldn't get in even if you wanted to (well, most couldn't). So, we get single working mothers on Public Welfare that pays for their Public Child Supervision Services living in dilapidated Public Housing with functionally illiterate children graduating from Public School they attended riding a Public Buses along Public Roads policed by Public Security who then take and put those graduating kids into Public Prisons where they get free ObamaCare if they sign-up real quick now... Oooo but that would require reading. Damn!

I you want 'free' healthcare, then you don't get to keep your civil liberties. That's the price. If you're happy to pay it, then so be it. But, it will be paid. It's NOT POSSIBLE to run a centrally planned economy of any level of sophistication and complexity - and also allow people to be free. Freedom requires a very liberal free-market in order to provide correct pricing to ensure the system doesn't collapse. Without a free market, the State is forced to attempt to develop a means of acquiring the same amount of information as a price tag and your mind's value of an item - in some other way. Which is never going to happen. It's impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. You can not look into someone's mind and see their value-system. You can not measure ALL of the millions of cause and effects that lead to proper price of an item. This means, the Central Planners/State will need to spy on each and every single one of us, all day long, modeling our actions, and manipulating us as well as restricting our Civil Liberties (reduce the variable in their highly regulated market). They will still NEVER be able to replicate a value and a price tag! It simply is not possible. Think about a price tag of some free-market food item made in Brazil and sold to you in a store near your house. In that price is the information about the weather, the soil, the land, the freedom, where this item came from, how it was transported, how competent the farmer was in managing his fertilizer, the store owner, his rent, his employees pay, vacation time, sick days, etc... etc.... etc.... all of that and much more in encapsulated in a price tag. Without a free market, without sound money - that information is skewed and soon lost. Thus, inefficiencies build in and eventually the system collapses, which happened in 2008 and it will happen again. So, do enjoy your ObamaCare, it's going to cost a LOT more than you probably realize. Sure, it'll take a while (given the system doesn't collapse) but your grandchildren will never even question the fact they have to take a test to do a job and aren't allowed one iota of personal privacy. Who knows, perhaps with DNA testing only certain people will be allowed to have children. You know, for the good of The People. The Citizen. The Nation. Can't have too many takers now can we? Welcome to the State. Welcome to Democracy.

 

[paddoboy]

I simply find it interesting you think Citizenship, which has no virtue attached to it - it's pure dumb-luck you were stamped with Australia Citizenship at birth and not Saudi Arabian or German or North Korean. This is to say, you had no say in your Citizenship. Yet, through no fault of your own, and no virtue of your own, you feel entitled to something from other people in the world. I find that interesting. Further, while you have no problem paying for shoes and shirts made by poor children in Indonesia, you think your neighbor on the dole (who does nothing to interact with you and is also, through dumb-luck, stamped a similar citizenship) that this person is entitled (to use your word) to so-called 'free' healthcare while these children who work for you - are owed nothing more than the few cents a day they are paid. So, we have one person who does nothing of value, and you think they are entitled to healthcare and we have children who work 14 hours a day for peanuts and they are entitled to nothing. Yet, and here's where the magic thinking comes in, if they were to move to Australia - now they are entitled to free healthcare.

You don't find the moral convolutions astounding from an Ethical perspective?

That aside, a couple points: Prior the United States government 'regulating' healthcare is was of high quality and was so cheap it was nearly free. One more time: Healthcare was CHEAP and UNIVERSAL. There was no healthcare problem - well, unless you were a practitioner and wanted more money. Thus was born the AMA and with it the MD. Soon the 'Public' Universities who were there to educate, were now there to "certify" / State sanction. I think you'll find that when one has a captive monopoly on a market - the quality goes down, while the price goes up. AND this is exactly what has happened.

Instead of dealing with the root of the problem - force/regulation we're going to attempt to use more force. It's like combating rape with more rape.
In steps ObamaCare.
Now, notice I said combating. ObamaCare (force) is combating the medical system establishment (force). ObamaCare is the reaction to force. See, animals do this. They feel caged and so they lash out. Democracy seems to bring this sub-human tendency out in the lay public, mainly by demagogue and sophistry. Which is too bad given we have developed the intellectual means to see past force (not to mention a history of free market voluntarism). Well, we'll see how good rape is at combating rape.

Let's see ObamaCare (a) shifts the costs of medicine from retiring babyboomers (who enjoyed gainful employment and healthcare insurance throughout their lives) on to the backs of their grandchildren (b) those grandchildren are finding it nearly impossible to get full time employment (partly due to ObamaCare) as businesses prefer to hire them at reduced hours (c) and god knows no one wants to hire anyway due to litigation and regulation, and (d) these children are already regulated out of all the markets their grandpartents enjoyed (e) thus sticking them with a mountain of debt - - all of which bequeathed to them from their selfish grandparents who had a predilection for over-indulgence.

I simply said I find this sickening. And it's sad too, because we really could have a cheap universal healthcare if we used free markets and sound money / capital.


One last point: When we practice true free-market capitalism we create more than enough value and capital. We would have more than enough (see: $40 Trillion dollars EXTRA every single year) capital to provide all children 0-18 whose parents didn't have healthcare coverage for them - with healthcare. It'd literally be nothing. Nothing. In general, we're relatively healthy as a people. So, it would be nothing at all when the average wage is $300,000 a year. But, nope, we live in this world. So, in that sense, if we are going to live in a Progressive Fascist State (which we do) then it would be much better to pay for healthcare for children than say to use drones to bomb and murder Iraqi women and children, or use the NSA to spy on US Citizens and German Chancellors. AND, as it stands, Australia directs a lot of their natural resources (kind of like KSA sitting on oil) to ensuring children have healthcare - it's probably one of the best in the world. Does the State do this out of love? No. As mentioned in some other thread - its cost efficient and the State buys in some of the best technology Japan and German can provide them. Of course, the State is going broke and so there has to be both massive immigration as well as selling off all natural resources (and even leasing land outright).

There is a cost for all that "Universal" healthcare + all the other services people expect for 'free' (that's code for selling bonds on children). Thus, IMO the Australia of 2050 is not going to look anywhere near like the Australia of 2000. No more 'She'll be Right'. No more, laid-back beach lifestyle. No way. Most people probably don't know it, but Australians are working much harder than Americans or even Japanese. The laid-back life style is all but gone. All those 'free' services cost you your time. It's not uncommon for Australians to put their children into day supervision facilities from aged 6 weeks old so they can get back to work. And there's some very good evidence this is leading to major psychological problems with those children. If something is being forced onto the public, that should tell you something. That force doesn't come without a cost. A very high cost. Maybe one you don't even know you're paying. But, you are paying.

Really, that would be the biggest load of bullshit, and exaggerated claims I have ever heard on any forum.
I find nothing more distasteful then individuals with extreme political agendas, telling the rest how wicked and uncaring they are.

 

[paddoboy]

I have a question.

This isn't a hypothetical.

An obese man (Patient X) was seen by his cardiologist earlier this year. He's already cost the national healthcare scheme around $1 million dollars (multiple heart attacks - you may not realize it, but those are pretty expensive). Of course this person never paid much into the system. 1.5% across 35 years of working (being generous) he's paid in around $30K. When told he needed to modify his life style he (and I'll quote my friend here) stated: "You can f*ck off mate, I pay me taxes and that pays you to fix me up."

So, my question is: Given Australians are working at maximal efficiency. Most can barely makes ends meet and in terms of personal debt, Australians are in deep. Deeper than most Americans. The tax rate is as high as it can go without seriously undermining the economy. It is agreed that the high minimum wage hurt the economy and made Australians poorer (which is why none of the other socialist nations of the world modeled it). Given it IS uncommon in Australia to have a full-time mother at home raising children and it is not uncommon to have children in daycare from an early age (even as early as 6 weeks). Given immigration (to expand the tax base) is at about the maximum it can be without outright social breakdown due to stress on services. Someone has to pay, and the Nation is at it's limit. Raising the debt ceiling by 66% still has to be paid off (by the young of course). So, again, given these are the facts on the ground: Which social services do you want to see cut so that the coming flood of patient X's can take the thousands of millions of dollars in healthcare services they are entitled to?

I'm genuinely curious.

I doubt that.....about the curiosity I mean.
He'll get it covered just as he should. Just because there are people that are individually a burden on a system, is no reason to scrap that system for the whole.

One area that IS being cut, is higher education. I suppose the logic is, so long as people want to migrate, skilled labor can be imported - and of course is. So, you are right of course, the public would throw the politicians out if their entitlements were cut. But, what is the public knew the true cost that was being paid? That their very society, way of life, future - is the price of those entitlements. Would they be as mad?

Anyway, so, other than higher education and research (given those are cut to the bone) what entitlements do you want to have your government cut in order to provide healthcare to the millions of obese patient X Australians?

Cuts [if needed] may happen, but they'll be within reason.
Your other rather exaggerated predictions are just that.

I also doubt the genuine nature of your curiosity.

We have a great health scheme as I have said previously, one that is the envy of most other countries, yet so simple to formulate and achieve.


I now have a question...Forgetting your extreme political agenda, how does one survive being so pessimistic about the world around him?
I'm not saying we don't have things to try and improve on, or that we all should not be more tolerant, but I also believe we are making some inroads.
And guess what? I see increased expenditure on space exploration as achieving those desires at a faster pace.

 

[pjdude1219]

I mean, just read pjdude1219's comment on a profit making hospital - as if this were a bad thing?!? As if a non-profit (no capital savings for improvements) were better. Or maybe he thinks a profit-loosing hospital is better (which is what happened in the USSR/China/E. Germany/N. Korea). In a FREE market making a profit is a GOOD thing. It means those people over there are doing something right. And because people are free to do business with them - it must mean they're doing something people WANT. With the savings they accumulate they're able to do MORE of that thing. And because the market is FREE, other's rapidly start doing the same thing.

congrats you completely missed the point. i mean you didn't even come close to getting the point. Your just making shit up as usual. there is nothing wrong with making a profit even in a hospital. how ever when the quest to make a profit causes worse paitent outcomes than yes its a problem. and what don't you get by the fact for profit hospitals are the least effiecient and have the worst paitent outcomes. for your entire notion that the free market is inherently better is shown to be false.



don't you work in the medical field? you should get that paitent out comes are what any hospital should be judged on to determine if its doing a good job

 

[joepistole]

So, when you wrote above "Yeah, you keep telling yourself that" when I first pointed out your failure to discern that Michael recognized that The Onion was satire, what you really meant was "Yeah, you should reflect firmly on that point, because you were really on to something there"? This is a fascinating process. I mean, it's hard to tell which way you're trying to go: do you really think you didn't make such a mistake from the start, or were you trying rope-a-dope, or do you think that claiming "I denied nothing" in a sort of Nixonian way means that your earlier comments disappear? There's an amazing amount of intellectual contortion here and I want to figure out where the break-point is for your processing.

LOL, you should take your meds

 

[Michael]

Really, that would be the biggest load of bullshit, and exaggerated claims I have ever heard on any forum.
I find nothing more distasteful then individuals with extreme political agendas, telling the rest how wicked and uncaring they are.

Your position is the "Citizens" are (to use your words) entitled to 'Universal' Healthcare. This IS your position, correct?

My argument is that "Citizenship" has no virtue attached to it. One does nothing virtuous to become a Citizen (well, if you're born a Citizen, an immigrant is a different story - they are deserving of their Citizenship). So, if we're referring to a naturalized Citizen, then it's simply dumb-luck, an accident of birth. And so, I simply find it interesting you believe a 'fellow' Australian who does no work is 'entitled' to Universal Healthcare due to shared Citizenship, whereas the children who worked 14 hours a day to make you your clothing and shoes (and may even be geographically located closer to you) are undeserving of Universal Healthcare because they don't share Citizenship with you through no fault of their own (or your own).
To me, it seems to be an oxymoron.
I mean, the children are performing honest work, they trade their labor in manufacturing your clothing and shoes - which is virtuous behavior. They may be geographically located closer to you than another 'Citizen'. They do interact with you through trade, you wear the clothing they made you. And yet, you don't think they are entitled to Universal Healthcare, whereas the person who told the Cardiologist to piss off does.

That's odd to me.

Is there some exaggerated claims here?
I did not mention anything of politics.
I did not say the word wicked. I used the term moral, as it is studied within Ethics.

I think an argument can be made the appealing to Citizenship as a means-test for healthcare entitlement is immoral. Do you agree? Shouldn't there be some level of virtue?

 

[paddoboy]

Your position is the "Citizens" are (to use your words) entitled to 'Universal' Healthcare. This IS your position, correct?

My argument is that "Citizenship" has no virtue attached to it. One does nothing virtuous to become a Citizen. It's simply luck of birth. And so, I simply find it interesting you believe a 'fellow' Australia who does no work is 'entitled' to Universal Healthcare whereas the children who worked 14 hours a day to make you your clothing a shoes are undeserving of Universal Healthcare. To me, it seems to be an oxymoron. I mean, the children are performing honest work, they trade their labor in manufacturing your clothing and shoes - which is virtuous behavior. Yet, you don't think they are entitled to Universal Healthcare.

Is there some exaggerated claims here?
I did not mention anything of politics.
I did not say the word wicked. I used the term moral, as it is studied within Ethics.

I think an argument can be made the appealing to Citizenship as a means-test for healthcare entitlement is immoral. Do you agree?

I won't argue with you over pedantic terminology, but yes of course the children/adults of other countries should be covered by a Universal health care similar to the one in question.....
So let's get out there and educate their governments to raise their standards to what we have in Australia, or are you suggesting Australia drop their standards down to their level?
And yes, I disagree...health care in any country, in the first instance is for its own citizens.

 

[joepistole]

Your position is the "Citizens" are (to use your words) entitled to 'Universal' Healthcare. This IS your position, correct?

My argument is that "Citizenship" has no virtue attached to it. One does nothing virtuous to become a Citizen. It's simply luck of birth. And so, I simply find it interesting you believe a 'fellow' Australia who does no work is 'entitled' to Universal Healthcare whereas the children who worked 14 hours a day to make you your clothing a shoes are undeserving of Universal Healthcare. To me, it seems to be an oxymoron. I mean, the children are performing honest work, they trade their labor in manufacturing your clothing and shoes - which is virtuous behavior. Yet, you don't think they are entitled to Universal Healthcare.
Is there some exaggerated claims here?
I did not mention anything of politics.
I did not say the word wicked. I used the term moral, as it is studied within Ethics.
I think an argument can be made the appealing to Citizenship as a means-test for healthcare entitlement is immoral. Do you agree?

How is an Australian receiving a healthcare entitlement from his/her government taking something away from someone living in another country? Each country has the right to make its own rules, its own laws. Are you arguing Australians should provide universal access to healthcare to everyone in every country else it is immoral for Australians to provide their citizens with universal healthcare? Is that your argument?

 

[Michael]

I doubt that.....about the curiosity I mean.
He'll get it covered just as he should. Just because there are people that are individually a burden on a system, is no reason to scrap that system for the whole.

Cuts [if needed] may happen, but they'll be within reason.

It's not 'may' happen. It's happening. As in - right now. In order to pay for the entitlements for the large retiring segment of society, money is being direct AWAY from education.

We have a great health scheme as I have said previously, one that is the envy of most other countries, yet so simple to formulate and achieve.

Are you in healthcare? I'm just curious as to how you came to think the word 'great'. As an example, a close friend of mine needed some work done on her teeth. In Australia she went to three dentists and the price came in at $1350 (cheepest). So, she flew back to Japan and had the same work done there. It cost her $50. While she was there I took her to see the doctor (flu). The entire visit (including medication) cost her $0.50 cents. I asked what that was for. It was for the plastic dropper.

Given Japan MAKES the machines we use in Australia, would you say Japan is 'greater' or 'less great' or what exactly in terms of 'healthcare' (they similarly have universal healthcare).

I now have a question...Forgetting your extreme political agenda, how does one survive being so pessimistic about the world around him?
I'm not saying we don't have things to try and improve on, or that we all should not be more tolerant, but I also believe we are making some inroads.
And guess what? I see increased expenditure on space exploration as achieving those desires at a faster pace.

I'm not pessimistic. But perhaps I can explain my way of thinking so that it makes more sense. Imagine we were living in the 1750s and I was an abolitionist and someone (person A) was a Slave owner. Our discussion was regarding 'freedom'. I made the argument that the initiation of force was immoral. Person A makes a few arguments on why Slavery is A-OK in his book:
1. We live in a democracy, a vote was taken, Slavery is legal.
2. Without Slavery, people would starve and die unclothed. For the 'greater good of society' Slavery was needed.
3. Slavery has always been part of humanity, and always will be.
4. Slaves had a better life and if treated kindly and afforded medical care, maybe better than if they were free.
etc....

These were your typical Slave owners arguments.

Suppose I had two rebuttals:
1. In the future, machines up in space called satellites will use invisible communication with automated machines on earth that run on dinasaur juice connected via a global tracking system such that a single free man could do the work for a thousand slaves.
2. It's immoral to initiate force against an innocent person.


Which argument do you think makes more sense to the person in the 1750s?


I'm not pessimistic, I'm saying that the problems we are experiences as a society are the by-products of resorting to the use of force over that of voluntary interaction. Society continued to advance (Progress) during periods of Slavery (see Rome, Greece, America) but because they resorted to force, long-term trends were set in place. Rome, as an example, had everything needed to usher in the industrial revolution - but failed to do so because human Slavery was so much cheaper (and Romans were actually pretty decent when it came to Slavery, Greeks OTOH were arse holes). I fail to see why you think pessimism would have anything to do with Slavery itself being immoral? There's really no emotion content to the argument. It's pretty straight forward: When your mother told you not to hit, not to steal - she meant for you to continue to apply those rules to your conduct as an adult, not only when you were a child. Appealing to the 'Vote' or to the "Citizenship" or to other countries or time periods does nothing to negate this fact.

Initiating force against innocent people is immoral.
Immoral actions lead to negative outcomes.

Romans thought Slavery was great - they missed out on the industrial revolution.
We think "Universal" Healthcare is great - we missed out on curing cancer, aging, and a whole host of other diseases.

And the worst thing, by combining notions of "Progressivism" with the backing of the State, we ended up with Central Banks - these are HOW we fund our useless Wars. Which seem to occur about once in a generations. So, instead of at least using the State to provide decent healthcare, we're spending most of our 'wealth' killing and murdering and spying on people. WAY more money is spent killing lives than is spent saving lives.



As a side note: I posted a link to an article on a separate thread that estimated that in the USA, if we had stuck with free markets and the regulations of 1950, that the annual GDP would be $40 TRILLION dollars per year, the average salary would be over $300,000 per year - you don't think THAT would fund a lot of healthcare? You don't think it's sad we instead have THIS system instead? Again, we resorted to use of force (State regulations) in an attempt to 'help' society, and we have a much poorer society for it. So poor now we need ObamaCare to insure millions of adults in the so-called 'freest' nation on earth.




--
I'd also note, Australia is in a humongous bubble. If and when that bubble pops - then there's going to be even more cuts to social services. It's baked in the cake. Don't you think it would be much better to have a system that is NOT reliant on the government? Stop and think about this for a minute. IF the Government can redistribute wealth to provide healthcare, then the Free-Market that created the wealth to begin with, could do so - without the middle men in Government taking a thick slice for themselves. It's simple math. The government doesn't 'provide' healthcare. The government takes in taxes, sells bonds, and redistributes money. That's it. Other than it's legal obligation to initiate force, it's no different than a cafe' or any other group of people attempting to provide service to the market. Seeing this is extremely difficult for most people.

 

[Michael]

How is an Australian receiving a healthcare entitlement from his/her government taking something away from someone living in another country? Each country has the right to make its own rules, its own laws. Are you arguing Australians should provide universal access to healthcare to everyone in every country else it is immoral for Australians to provide their citizens with universal healthcare? Is that your argument?

No my argument is that 'Citizenship' is not a moral basis for entitlement. I'm not saying what individuals should or should not do, as a collective or otherwise. I'm only saying that "Citizenship" is not an argument, not a moral argument, for healthcare.

Who knows? Perhaps IF we lived in a free-market, then those little girls would be paid enough such that they'd be able to afford healthcare and it'd be truly 'Universal'. Another way to think about this is food - another 'Universal' requirement. We used to give food-aid (and still do) but it left hundreds of millions of people to starve. Then we simply opened up free-trade, this has pulled hundreds of millions of humans out of poverty. In China, where people starved to death, they're now obese.


You know what I find interesting Joe, you claim to like economics. You know that ALL economists agree the free market and price discovery creates the most prosperity making it possible for people to afford healthcare - and yet you want to use, not the free-market, but the government to provide healthcare?! Explain that. This makes no sense from an economic point of view. The ONLY argument I can see, is we don't live in a free-market (which we don't) - but then, you STILL don't want to live in a free-market because of your religious belief in Central Planned/Banked economies. I really don't know how you square that circle. It's very superstitions thinking to say the least.


As an aside, yes, in a highly regulated captive market, like Australia, it probably is more efficient to have the government provide healthcare - and they do a pretty good job of doing so for children. And, with AI like Watson coming on-line, I imagine it will be even better in the future. However, this isn't to say healthcare is 'great' in Australia. A free-market AS WE BOTH KNOW would truly bring top-quality inexpensive Universal healthcare. In place of that, this will do. Would the AU system work in the USA? Maybe. Maybe not. It probably couldn't be worse than the highly regulated AMA-mafia-ran healthcare system in place now. I do hope the 'exchanges' work better than the monopolies. But, I don't think so, given it was written BY the companies it's there to create competition between.

Example: ObamaCare has done nothing to end the illegality of opening up a new hospital, or fMRI center, etc... without first proving the need is there. That is insane. Most Americans have no idea of how un-free the markets truly are in America.