IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

okie still doesn't "get it." Universal health care in Germany was established in the mid-eighties - way before Hitler was even born. Besides that, okie still confuses Hitler with socialists or lefties even though much evidence has been provided to prove otherwise.

okie is a lost cause; his brain is damaged too far for any repairs.

I believe you are being very selective in your references to "Judaeo Christian Philosophy" (whatever that means). I believe an essential tenant of that philosophy is that we are indeed our brother's keeper; that whatever we do do the leat of these our brethren we do also t0 God. Property rights are an accepted part of that philosophy, but they are by no means absolute as you infer them to be. On the contrary charity is persistently extolled as a necessary virtue.

However it is not charity to advocate use of government power to take from one and give to another. That may be desirable in some cases, but it is not charity in the moral sense.

I fully accept Deborah's moral arguments concerning our obligations to aid the less fortunate. I just don't think that the conclusion that these things must be or are best done by government is either warranted by the argument or practically correct. The perversities of human nature and the contradictions implicit in the human condition require that we work to provide for ourselves and others; that we forego, delay or limit the gratification of some natural desires, and that in many situations we seek tolerable "solutions" to the contradictions that confront us as opposed to the pursuit of ideals that too often yield far worse side effects than the problem which they purport to address.

The president has asserted that there is a gread deal of fraud and waste in Medicare and that part of his plan involves limiting that to provide the money to extend medicare-like entitlements to the general population. I agree with him about the fraud. However, I do not believe that (1) he can successfully eliminate it - though he may reduce it to some extent; and, more significantly (2) I don't believe he can prevent similar abuse from undermining the intent and financial sustainability of the even larger entitlement he proposes to create. Human beings are very adept chislers - and the chislers are generally far more imaginative, creative and agile than are the dull brueaucrats who "police" them (worse, the political process itself often empowers well-connected chislers). A major part of the overhead of health insurers is limiting fraudulent claims - something the government hasn't done well in Medicare, and the result is an unsustainable explosion in public cost. I don't think that adding fuel to this fire by extending the entitlements is a sane or even rational proposal.

I also fear the long term effects of government management of health care on my personal freedoms and on the innovation and investment that have made the American system one of the world's chief sources of new treatments of disease.

Bottom line is that my objections are practical, not doctrinaire. In your case my impression is that you are highly selective in the philosophical principles you wish to apply and have not yet put forward a self-consistent doctrine that addresses the entirety of the issues you raise - whether it is health care or left vs. right political movements.

Right on, you understand my point in part, but the important and salient point here is that Judeo Christian philosophy I believe endorses being our brothers keeper, but this is important, as an individual, not as a nation. In fact, that is why Judas was offended, he thought the ointment should have been used to help the poor. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. Did Jesus endorse helping the poor, yes definitely, but only as an individual, not as a government. He was never into government at all. Judeo Christian principles are written all over the ten commandments and other old laws, where owning porperty and stealing were clearly identified as foundational principles, but were clearly aimed at individuals not groups.

And yes, charity is to help people as individuals, not by using government, that is the most important point to recognize. And it is not a law to help others, it is totally voluntary, that is why it is charitable.

I think our government is more designed to protect us from each other, to protect individual rights, that is why police protection and national defense are some of the most basic and important functions of our government. It is not designed to insure fairness or equality of outcome in terms of property, assets, etc.

cuz jesus was afraid of communism too, right okie?

Yup; that's the reason why all those countries with universal health care are still CAPITALISTIC countries. Not one has transformed itself into socialism or communistic; where their fear comes from is anybody's guess. It's not reality for sure!

Here's a twist; China wants to offer universal health care to - expand consumer spending! SHOCK!

That is a flippant comment to make, rockhead, for the apparent reason of diminishing the importance of the issue that I talk about here. Actually as I said, I don't think governments or politics were his concern at all. I am merely trying to point out what I believe the reasons are for some of our political beliefs, the how, why, and where they evolved from. And you could have offered something substantive instead of the flippance.

I think the paragraph you wrote is important to address, because I think my posts have indeed identified the basic philosophical principles underlying left vs right, contrary to what you claim is a highly selective method. It is not highly selective, I have instead reduced all of the differences into a very basic overall philosophy, that of the rights and responsibilities of the group or community vs the individual. I think that is the one defining principle underlying this entire issue, so it is not selective at all, it helps explain it. I have also traced this to a religious or pseudo religious belief surrounding whether the individual has rights or whether the community or therefore the State has pre-eminence, to force commonality of assets, property, religion, thought, whatever. So it is self consistent and it does address the entirety of the issues, when applied sensibly.

I don't think so. How do you distinguish between "good" government intervention and "bad' in your theoretical constructs? Distinguishing on a practical basis between what works and what doesn't is ususlly possible in the extremes, but always arguable in the middle. Adding the complexity of what is or isn't a justifiable restriction of individual liberty makes for very intractable problems - and I don't see enough in your doctrines - as you have expressed them here - to constitute a complete guide.

In particular I believe you wrongfully attempt to oversimplify these issues by simply sweeping away key variables. A good example is the highly simplistic left-right taxonomy on which you attempt (unsuccessfully) to impale the whole of political and economic history in the "ruthless dictators" thread. This leads you to numerous contradictions, which I won't repeat, but which several others (and myself) have repeatedly attempted to point out. Your usual reaction is to either evade the point entirely or simply return to the recitation of your points. This is neither respectful of your interlocutors nor rational.

Basically George, at elections. The wisdom of large groups.



I get that response a fair amount.

No. Elections allow you to express your opinion. They don''t begin to help form them.

I think you are missing Spendi's point.

spendi has a point? LOL At any rate, roger's post about the voters expressing their opinions with their votes is at its very fundamental level of choice. Nothing more matters; once in office, presidents and congress members do what they please.

If I missed the point, I assure you it was not deliberate.

I think Spendi's point was that in situations in which theoretical anayses don't produce procuce clear or generally accepted guides, the "wisdom of crowds" as expressed in elections is usually the best alternative.

His point is valid - though there are counter examples. Hitler was brought to power in a reasonably fair election in Germany.

Reductio ad Hitlerum... not only a logical fallacy, but in this case also not quite true to the facts.

Your statement is literally correct, but Hitler's party never got much more than a third of the vote, while in a runoff election Hindenburg got over 50%. Hitler managed to become chancellor after a series of backroom deals aka coalition building.

It's a sign of the universal fatigue with the health care debate that even Hitler seems a better subject

Speaking of what a sampling of voters want:

Washington Post-ABC News Poll

I guess it depends what is meant by "Hitler was brought to power", but assuming that it refers to the dictatorial powers Hitler gained through the Ermächtigungsgesetz after the 1933 parliamentary elections, those were not just the result of democratic elections or of coalition building. The parliamentary majority for the law that transferred the power to enact legislation, including legislation to change the Constitution itself, from the parliament to Hitler's cabinet was a result of open intimidation, exclusion and murder of opposition politicians.

Now I understand the point. We are communicating, but not agreeing. I'm going to offer a little anecdote, which happens to be true.

Several times in 9th grade algebra, our instructor let us vote on the correct answer to problems. The majority was usually wrong. His point (he'd probably be censured today) was that while the majority may rule, it is not always right.

This was one of the best instructors I've ever had, before or since.