<p>
[quote]
watercannon: You're still attempting to justify your elitist statement by saying that students at Ivy League schools tend to have higher grades, SAT scores, etc. Just admit your eliticism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So im trying to justify my "elitism" by stating a fact?</p>
<p>Socialized medicine--I have no qualms with calling it that--can be anti-freedom when there are ppl are prevented from opting out into the private care provider of their choice, as in Canada. However, when done right, it's one of the best public goods we can invest in as taxpayers. When I say done right, I mean state-based (b.c. ea. state has different public health demands) and incentive-driven (b.c. incentives tend to be a lot cheaper and easier to administer.) </p>
<p>The inadequate nature of healthcare in this country, its inefficiencies, etc., prevent people from getting the care they need, which in turn limits their ability to be effective members of the workforce, and in turn makes them a burden upon the system. For example, of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2004, 50% did so because of medical bills. Of those, another 50% already had insurance. </p>
<p>To say that there's no healthcare problem in the United States would be incredibly inaccurate. To say that nationalizing healthcare is the solution would be even more off-base. But to say that one's health insurance and their expenses are entirely within their control is completely off the mark--as is the implication that we should do nothing about it.</p>
<p><<i don't="" buy="" that="" being="" unemployment="" will="" just="" automatically="" cause="" you="" to="" become="" insane="" or="" committ="" a="" crime.="">></i></p><i don't="" buy="" that="" being="" unemployment="" will="" just="" automatically="" cause="" you="" to="" become="" insane="" or="" committ="" a="" crime.="">
<p>That's not what I was saying. 1 in 6 prisoners in the US suffers from a serious mental illness. The CDC defines a serious mental illness as a mood disorder (such as bipolar), schizophrenia, and psychosis with origins specific to childhood (such as autism). In short, 1 in 6 prisoners suffers from a condition that is treatable; and therefore there is a higher likelihood that their criminal actions could have been prevented with adequate, consistent, and appropriate care.</p>
<p>Additionally, it is exceptionally difficult for an individual with a chronic illness to hold down a job. Your boss only cares about whether or not you're there, not why you aren't. (Case in point: I was once fired when I called out sick. From my hospital bed.) If you get fired, then you have to look for another job. And it's back to square one for your benefits. </p>
<p><<i believe="" having="" safety="" nets="" is="" wrong.="" its="" basically="" a="" crutch="" that="" people="" know="" they="" can="" fall="" back="" on.="" thus,="" won't="" give="" it="" their="" 100%="" before="" taking="" another="" job="" or="" something.="">></i></p><i believe="" having="" safety="" nets="" is="" wrong.="" its="" basically="" a="" crutch="" that="" people="" know="" they="" can="" fall="" back="" on.="" thus,="" won't="" give="" it="" their="" 100%="" before="" taking="" another="" job="" or="" something.="">
<p>This past winter, my parents had to go on heating assistance. They kept the heat at below 60 the whole winter, but we're in New England and they lost their business. My mother didn't stop working her 50-60 hours a week; my father didn't stop working his 90+ week at his new job. I've worked with many individuals who have gone on public assistance for one reason or another. Every one of them has gone off it, and returned to be a contributing member of society. Not once have I seen it used as a "crutch". I think that is a foolish over generalization.</p>
<p><<i think="" that="" being="" down="" on="" your="" luck="" should="" teach="" you="" a="" lesson,="" and="" can="" learn="" from="" mistakes.="" i="" don't="" believe="" it="" be="" an="" excuse="" for="" coercing="" money.="">></i></p><i think="" that="" being="" down="" on="" your="" luck="" should="" teach="" you="" a="" lesson,="" and="" can="" learn="" from="" mistakes.="" i="" don't="" believe="" it="" be="" an="" excuse="" for="" coercing="" money.="">
<p>How much should hard-working, dedicated people be expected to learn from their mistakes? Hard work and talent are no guarantee in a capitalist system. (I believe in the capitalist system, but it has its flaws.) I have known Ivy League grads who were downsized, and award-winnning entrepeneurs whose businesses went under. Those who seek public assistance are not coercing money; often they are at the very end of their ropes and feel a great amount of shame for what they are doing. Choosing to invest in these people, to help them change their lives around or return to their past success, is one of the greatest actions we can take.</p>
</i></i></i>
<p>I believe we should deregulate healthcare completely. If you don't you're either going to end up with a healthcare quagmire like Canada, or inadequate healthcare like Britain, or 60% taxes like Sweden. Governmental regulation will solve nothing.</p>
<p>Except that these investments are not voluntary. And there lies the problem. Want to invest in people? Sure, do it with your own money. My problem arises when do gooders tax me and spend it on something I would not have on my own.</p>
<p>About the prisoners; according to you, 5/6 then do not suffer from mental diseases. So why don't we quit blaming diseases, since the rest 83% are non disease related. And this is pure correlation. There is no evidence suggesting that autism or schizophrenia leads to crime.</p>
<p>Please, once I explained to my British friends what the American system was like, they said: "Christ, what are we whining about anyway?" (Direct quote.)</p>
<p>A lack of govt involvement (or inefficient govt involvement) has solved very little to date. Do you know what the infant mortality rate in the US is? Do you know which other country in this hemisphere we share it with?</p>
<p>I wonder, w1cked, have you ever had the distinct pleasure of being uninsured, with $350 in prescriptions to buy on a monthly basis? Or can you merely discuss this as an abstraction?</p>
<p>I believe, if I am not mistaken, the infant mortality rate in the US is 9 per 1000 births? I would guess that Mexico has a similar rate, but I am probably off..</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder, w1cked, have you ever had the distinct pleasure of being uninsured, with $350 in prescriptions to buy on a monthly basis? Or can you merely discuss this as an abstraction?
[/quote]
Actually no. I had a lung surgery (a bulictomy, a thoracotomy or something to that effect last year), uninsured. My parents are currently paying 70% of the monthly bills, and i am chipping in 30% from work and savings. I plan on paying them back when I have a good job.</p>
<p>Re: prisoners. If 17% are there for relatively preventable reasons, and it costs over $30,000 a year to keep someone incarcerated, then couldn't we save an awful lot of money by providing adequate care in the community--before delusions and psychosis turn them to criminals. </p>
<p>Re: voluntary. Each voter is an investor in public goods. When you select your candidate, you choose which public goods you would like to see invested in. Taxes are part of the social contract: as individuals within a society, we each have competing needs; in order to ensure that the basic needs for all are met, we must submit a tiny part of our individual sovereignty to an elected third party--and when this is done correctly, there are great rewards.</p>
<p>It's Cuba, actually.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, my parents could not assist me with my prescriptions. As a student who works about 20 hours a week and supports herself entirely, $350 a month is more than my rent, and larger than a week's paycheck. When I maxed out my script benefit, I didn't qualify for any prescription assistance. And I had no savings left; I had given them to my parents so that they could hang on to their house.</p>
<p>My parents never even had a house...Its hardly something to complain about.</p>
<p>Meh. Fair enough, I can feel this devolving into a poor-off, so let's focus on the issues.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Liberals do not equal elitist. (That does not mean, however, that liberals equal not elitist.)</p></li>
<li><p>The social contract is a founding principle of democracy; taxes are a part of that. </p></li>
<li><p>The question then becomes, what is the most effective use of our taxes? How can we best invest as little money as possible for the most rewards?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Since you obviously feel that SS, TANF, and other social welfare programs are an unwise investment; which public goods do you think represent the most cost-effective investments with the greatest returns possible for the most individuals within a society?</p>
<p>
[quote]
which public goods do you think represent the most cost-effective investments with the greatest returns possible for the most individuals within a society?
[/quote]
I am not sure.. Give me a few examples of public goods.</p>
<p>By the way, we are a federal Constitutional republic, not a democracy. A democracy is Palestine, which recently elected the terrorist organization HAMAS into power.</p>
<p>Then why do we extoll democracy as our greatest export? And you can have federated democratic systems. There are many variations, I feel you are just playing with semantics. We are a democracy when it is convenient for the sake of argument, and "a federated constitutional republic" when it is also convenient. However, let me revise my last statement--the social contract is a founding principle of a democratic society.</p>
<p>Public goods: defense, infrastructure, education, healthcare (whether it be clinics, subsidized insurance, vaccination and nutrition programs), pension plans, prisons, environmental resources (inc. water and energy sources), etc.</p>
<p>I have never argued we are a democracy. Ever. I don't see why you would say that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Public goods: defense, infrastructure, education, healthcare (whether it be clinics, subsidized insurance, vaccination and nutrition programs), pension plans, prisons, environmental resources (inc. water and energy sources), etc.
[/quote]
Out of those, defense, and vaccination in absolute emergencies (i dunno, biological warfare or something?) should be operated by government.</p>
<p>But infrastructure, education, healthcare, pensions, prisons, and environmental resources are all things that we share in a given society. Why do these merit less attention? And, as a federated constitutional republic, we have different levels of govt--each varying in oversight and responsiveness. What makes you think that all of them would do an equally abysmal job?</p>
<p>
[quote]
infrastructure, education, healthcare, pensions, prisons, and environmental
[/quote]
All of these are better off if left in private hands. If I really had to concede, then I would let the government have some part in infrastructure and prisons. Education, healthcare, pensions, and the environment are wayy too be left to government control. They will **** it up. Guaranteed.</p>
<p>wayy too _____ ?</p>
<p>The health and well-being of individuals should not be a traded commodity. While throwing money at the problem is by no means a solution, I believe that state-based incentive-driven plans (like Maine's) offer solutions to our healthcare crisis. Which is what it is. </p>
<p>Whether or not a given govt will "**** up" the control of a given publicly shared resource is contingent upon its responsiveness and its planning. I agree that our federal bureaucracy is an appalling behemoth. But that should not damn all other opportunities for fair administration of our publicly shared resources. </p>
<p>If you are not already familiar with it, I would strongly recommend that you read about the tragedy of the commons. And anything by Robert Putnam.</p>
<p>Do you realize that only by treating health as a commodity can you ensure better healthcare? Only if people stand to profit from it will they improve it. Look at every other product that is a commodity; food, clothing, cars, computers. Do you think you would have as much choice, variety, and quality if the government meddled with it? I think not!</p>
<p>Actually, I do believe I had to read something by Robert Putnam for my PoliSci class.</p>
<p>If people want to opt out of public healthcare for their own private insurance, they should be able to. As of right now, many do not have choice, variety, or quality. Period. The question in this country is not quality of care; it is access to it. All the choice, variety, and quality in the world cannot be doing us very much good if we have the same IMR as Cuba. Without public healthcare, the uninsured and underinsured are costing this country billions in decreased productivity.</p>
<p>Re: Putnam. He has some v. interesting ideas. I like some of his older work; not so much "Bowling Alone". His analysis of southeast Asian credit unions is particularly insightful.</p>
<p>Where did guglielmo go?</p>
<p>Building radios.</p>