'Evil and Orwellian' – America's right turns its fire on Britain's NHS - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741065]If that's true, then how come the NHS is in debt? If governments were so money-obessed then surely the NHS would be in the black? The government isn't out to get everyone.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about the NHS, we are talking about the US Health proposal. The two are unrecognizably different, and so are our governments.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741080]We aren't talking about the NHS, we are talking about the US Health proposal. The two are unrecognizably different, and so are our governments.[/QUOTE] True, the proposal is more along the lines of the French and German health systems.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741065]If that's true, then how come the NHS is in debt? If governments were so money-obessed then surely the NHS would be in the black? The government isn't out to get everyone.[/QUOTE] Money is one of the main drives of Governments. Also, when did I say the Government is out to get everyone?

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741186]Money is one of the main drives of Governments. Also, when did I say the Government is out to get everyone?[/QUOTE] That doesn't actually answer his question, and in your last post you did imply that the Government couldn't care less about you...

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741186]Money is one of the main drives of Governments. Also, when did I say the Government is out to get everyone?[/QUOTE] I suppose I was trying to say dramatically that governments tend to be not extremely corrupt, but that might be different for the US. UK politicians haven't really got the hang of corruption. Screw buying huge mansions, I want a duck island!

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16741260]That doesn't actually answer his question, and in your last post you did imply that the Government couldn't care less about you...[/QUOTE] Fine, to answer his original question: Because (I'm not cognizant in this, I'm making an educated guess here) is that the idea behind the NHS is to make healthy citizens, and as we all know healthy citizens can work and pay taxes. The reason it's in debt is because the amount of money the government is making from these healthy citizens is not enough to properly pay for the medical expenses everyone requires, over time this is going to seriously bite them in the back if this continues. Also, I implied the government doesn't care, not that it's out to get everyone (that requires work, and if you are just an average citizen the government has no real reason to actively look for you.)

You should never ever assume a government is doing something to be compassionate.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741295]I suppose I was trying to say dramatically that governments tend to be not extremely corrupt, but that might be different for the US. UK politicians haven't really got the hang of corruption. Screw buying huge mansions, I want a duck island![/QUOTE] Corruption is not as widespread as many would believe, especially if we get into corruption that tends to spread, after all, the idea is that people's corruption should work against others corruption, and it's worked just fine so far. [editline]04:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16741347]You should never ever assume a government is doing something to be compassionate.[/QUOTE] The first rule of Political Science is that governments are out to make money, either directly (collecting taxes and trade) or indirectly (helping citizens, which in return makes them happy citizens and thus taxable.)

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741363]The first rule of Political Science is that governments are out to make money, either directly (collecting taxes and trade) or indirectly (helping citizens, which in return makes them happy citizens and thus taxable.)[/QUOTE] That would tend towards to improving the life of citizens, though. A surplus of money means that services can be improved to improve the lives of citizens who in turn can then spend more and pay more tax which in turn, etc. So in other words it would make sense for a government to actively improve the quality of life for it's citizens.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741347]You should never ever assume a government is doing something to be compassionate.[/QUOTE] Maybe not, but with enough public pressure they can be forced to, and public opinion is a pretty important thing in a democracy. [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741363] The first rule of Political Science is that governments are out to make money, either directly (collecting taxes and trade) or indirectly (helping citizens, which in return makes them happy citizens and thus taxable.)[/QUOTE] That may be a good model for analysing a government, but it doesn't mean they always lack even the smallest amount of compassion. [editline]1[/editline] Again, back to the NHS, it provides care even for those who have never and will never contribute to society financially or otherwise, how does this fit in? Actually, same goes for a social security system, it provides no return for the government, it is pretty much just giving out free money to the poor and untaxable, this doesn't fit either, but it happens.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741530]That would tend towards to improving the life of citizens, though. A surplus of money means that services can be improved to improve the lives of citizens who in turn can then spend more and pay more tax which in turn, etc. So in other words it would make sense for a government to actively improve the quality of life for it's citizens.[/QUOTE] Yes and large corporations amass billions to improve the quality of life for their customers. [editline]05:12PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hivemind;16741576]Maybe not, but with enough public pressure they can be forced to, and public opinion is a pretty important thing in a democracy. That may be a good model for analysing a government, but it doesn't mean they always lack even the smallest amount of compassion.[/QUOTE] I would appreciate it if you acknowledged this: [QUOTE=Lankist;16740989]Obama didn't draft this plan, his involvement is minimal. It was originally drafted by lobbyists, probably anyway. We can't create a system with an obligation to care for all because that's impossible on a U.S. scale. We have 300 million people to care for, PLUS illegal residents. Even assuming we had the money and the infrastructure to create a unified national insurance, it wouldn't work on the principal of law enforcement alone. As it stands Doctor Patient Confidentiality applies even to criminals so long as they do not pose a threat to anyone else. That is due to change when the government starts footing the bill. And this is only the practical shit, I haven't even begun to touch the philosophical side. Our government is extremely incompetent. I wouldn't trust them with the health of a rat, let alone my own. History has demonstrated that, at least in the US, ethical obligations quickly dissolve into obscurity when people get tired of giving shit out for free. The best minds don't want ethics, they want paychecks, and rightfully so. Government doesn't shell out the best pay and it never will, where on the other hand large corporations are capable of hiring the best minds for the job. The only remaining problem with that is that large corporations on the insurance side of the issue have absolutely no oversight, there is nobody to appeal to when they fuck you over unless you're willing to shell out thousands in legal fees and you're patient enough to fight it all the way to the top. Create oversight, fix problem. You can't go around saying the ultimate goal is to cover everyone and seal the cracks, because then the service turns to shit. The focus stops being on good healthcare and starts being on healthcare for everyone no matter how shit it becomes. When you start doing that you start seriously fucking with a lot of demographics. Terminal patients, prostitutes, drug users, shit even depressed children could all be denied service just to save a buck. How is that better than what we have? [editline]04:41PM[/editline] Your mistake is in thinking our government has compassion. It doesn't. It is cold and calculating, and it often misplaces a decimal.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741635]I would appreciate it if you acknowledged this:[/QUOTE] I acknowledge that the current plan is rubbish and agree with a lot of your points you make there.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741530]That would tend towards to improving the life of citizens, though. A surplus of money means that services can be improved to improve the lives of citizens who in turn can then spend more and pay more tax which in turn, etc. So in other words it would make sense for a government to actively improve the quality of life for it's citizens.[/QUOTE] You also said that this same program, which is supposed to cause "A surplus of money" is in debt.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741363] The first rule of Political Science is that governments are out to make money, either directly (collecting taxes and trade) or indirectly (helping citizens, which in return makes them happy citizens and thus taxable.)[/QUOTE] what's this deal with neocons thinking that all governments, even democratic republics like ours, are this lone, singular, totally isolated entity rather than a construct of the people that live under it? I'm pretty sure that governments are out to do whatever the people that run said government say. Governments aren't giant automatons with singular minds and goals, ya dummy

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16741688]You also said that this same program, which is supposed to cause "A surplus of money" is in debt.[/QUOTE] Exactly, therefore the Goverment is caring for the people, even though it costs them a huge amount of money, which was his original point, since you said they only want to make money... Did you just disagree with your own point?

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16741576] Again, back to the NHS, it provides care even for those who have never and will never contribute to society financially or otherwise, how does this fit in? Actually, same goes for a social security system, it provides no return for the government, it is pretty much just giving out free money to the poor and untaxable, this doesn't fit either, but it happens.[/QUOTE] That's because Social Security was never supposed to survive out of the Great Depression, it was simply put in place during the Great Depression to make sure people who don't have jobs due to the current situation do not starve to death. After the Great Depression left us, the program stayed in place because, as we all know, government rarely, if ever, drops programs of such a size (Government only increases, never decreases.)

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741635]Yes and large corporations amass billions to improve the quality of life for their customers.[/QUOTE] Well obviously no. However, if a retailer provides free public transport (using the money they've earned) for people so they can go to their store to pay money, then it's highly likely they'll see in a increases in profits. It's a form of investment in many respects.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;16741694]what's this deal with neocons thinking that all governments, even democratic republics like ours, are this lone, singular, totally isolated entity rather than a construct of the people that live under it? I'm pretty sure that governments are out to do whatever the people that run said government say. Governments aren't giant automatons with singular minds and goals, ya dummy[/QUOTE] We are currently closer to a democratic oligarchy than we are a true democratic republic. The real power lies in the hands of the party officials who decide the candidates, rather than the citizens who have the last and smallest say in the whole ordeal. [editline]05:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Camundongo;16741730]Well obviously no. However, if a retailer provides free public transport (using the money they've earned) for people so they can go to their store to pay money, then it's highly likely they'll see in a increases in profits. It's a form of investment in many respects.[/QUOTE] Then by that logic what the fuck is the point of government-controlled anything. If corporations are completely capable of using compassion to increase sales, why the fuck do we have a problem to fix?

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741730]Well obviously no. However, if a retailer provides free public transport (using the money they've earned) for people so they can go to their store to pay money, then it's highly likely they'll see in a increases in profits. It's a form of investment in many respects.[/QUOTE] lankist refuses to admit that he feels love for fellow human beings so it's usually a lost cause to try to explain systems that include a large human element like that to him

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;16741775]lankist refuses to admit that he feels love for fellow human beings so it's usually a lost cause to try to explain systems that include a large human element like that to him[/QUOTE] Hey sigma if you want to enter this debate you can start here: [QUOTE=Lankist;16740989]Obama didn't draft this plan, his involvement is minimal. It was originally drafted by lobbyists, probably anyway. We can't create a system with an obligation to care for all because that's impossible on a U.S. scale. We have 300 million people to care for, PLUS illegal residents. Even assuming we had the money and the infrastructure to create a unified national insurance, it wouldn't work on the principal of law enforcement alone. As it stands Doctor Patient Confidentiality applies even to criminals so long as they do not pose a threat to anyone else. That is due to change when the government starts footing the bill. And this is only the practical shit, I haven't even begun to touch the philosophical side. Our government is extremely incompetent. I wouldn't trust them with the health of a rat, let alone my own. History has demonstrated that, at least in the US, ethical obligations quickly dissolve into obscurity when people get tired of giving shit out for free. The best minds don't want ethics, they want paychecks, and rightfully so. Government doesn't shell out the best pay and it never will, where on the other hand large corporations are capable of hiring the best minds for the job. The only remaining problem with that is that large corporations on the insurance side of the issue have absolutely no oversight, there is nobody to appeal to when they fuck you over unless you're willing to shell out thousands in legal fees and you're patient enough to fight it all the way to the top. Create oversight, fix problem. You can't go around saying the ultimate goal is to cover everyone and seal the cracks, because then the service turns to shit. The focus stops being on good healthcare and starts being on healthcare for everyone no matter how shit it becomes. When you start doing that you start seriously fucking with a lot of demographics. Terminal patients, prostitutes, drug users, shit even depressed children could all be denied service just to save a buck. How is that better than what we have? [editline]04:41PM[/editline] Your mistake is in thinking our government has compassion. It doesn't. It is cold and calculating, and it often misplaces a decimal.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;16741775]lankist refuses to admit that he feels love for fellow human beings so it's usually a lost cause to try to explain systems that include a large human element like that to him[/QUOTE] Sigma you should know better than to use republican tactics :cop:

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741734]Then by that logic what the fuck is the point of government-controlled anything. If corporations are completely capable of using compassion to increase sales, why the fuck do we have a problem to fix?[/QUOTE] Because it's often the case that an act of (seemingly) compassion costs more than the profits that can be earned off it. Goverments are large enough and have a large profile of services and taxes so that the cost of acts of compassion can easily be absorbed and paid for by other sectors. For instance, if a universal healthcare system allowed more people to work then those who could then work could pay taxes, meaning the goverment gets their money back. A similiar thing applies to public transport: if more people can get to centres of buisness cheaply, then they can apply for better paid jobs and therefore get charged more tax and can then also buy more luxury products, which are also taxed.

Topic is mute government insurance being abandoned.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16741065]If that's true, then how come the NHS is in debt? If governments were so money-obessed then surely the NHS would be in the black? The government isn't out to get everyone.[/QUOTE] In order to keep us fickle voters happy the government has to spend more than it makes in tax revenue. [editline]11:08PM[/editline] The main aim of the political party in power is to stay in power.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16742082]Topic is mute government insurance being abandoned.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing you're talking about the fact the Obama administration's universal healthcare plan is being watered down, in which case I think you mean the discussion is moot.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16742171]I'm guessing you're talking about the fact the Obama administration is being watered down, in which case I think you mean the discussion is moot.[/QUOTE] No I am talking about how the White House just said they were dropping it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741787]Hey sigma if you want to enter this debate you can start here:[/QUOTE] summary: the government sucks, so we should just give up on the government rather than trying to fix it A++ post

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;16742583]summary: the government sucks, so we should just give up on the government rather than trying to fix it A++ post[/QUOTE] Summary: Didn't read it and doesn't want to acknowledge the destruction of several forms of social progress in its wake. [editline]06:40PM[/editline] Read the old proposal please: [url]http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Lankist;16741787]Hey sigma if you want to enter this debate you can start here:[/QUOTE] hey lankist maybe you should chill out a bit and go see a movie with a girl i dunno man you argue on this forum way too much and take it way too seriously

[QUOTE=Chippay;16742979]hey lankist maybe you should chill out a bit and go see a movie with a girl i dunno man you argue on this forum way too much and take it way too seriously[/QUOTE] I went to see a movie with your mom this morning. [editline]07:05PM[/editline] It was District 9 [editline]07:05PM[/editline] She was all oh the apartheid was terrible and my son is a dissapointment [editline]07:05PM[/editline] And then we had sex