Yes, but Ziggy, these Social Darwinists, Randians, Objectivists, or whatever they're calling themselves these days -- their RIGHT to FREELY ignore human need supersedes Christ's injunction to help the poor. There's nothing in that ethical code that requires them to give a shit at all about their fellow man.Originally Posted by ziggyX65
It is always easier to demonize the opposition because then you don't have to ask what you are doing, in implementing this goal, that is creating so many obviously angry people. What will be the consequences of creating even more?
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
There are only a handful of them now. We'll live.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
What WE are doing??? Heh.
For your information, I don't see it that way. What I've seen over the past 30-35 years has instead been a concerted effort on the part of self-centered, arrogant, well-heeled, overly fortunate folks to slowly erode away our social fabric and its basis in the Golden Rule. In the place of "there but for the grace of God go I" we have "I've got mine, screw you."
The idea that we liberals haven't asked ourselves what we are doing is ludicrous. Liberals are NOT the problem here. My experience with the individualistic types is that they are the ones who aren't very good at questioning their own assumptions or considering the consequences of their particular ethical system.
With time, they will become even fewer.
But teh social gospel is a call to Christians to act, not a call to the government.
Government is made up of people. People with social consciences (if we're lucky).
Some time ago, the people of the United States made a choice to use government as a tool to make living more bearable for those less fortunate among us. It saved lives and livelihoods. Did it always work perfectly? Of course not. But that doesn't mean you throw out the idea completely. You tweak it until it works better. You don't try to make "the government" some sort of alien entity that all of a sudden got dropped on us out of the sky.
As a Christian, I will of course do private charitable works. But I will also advocate for a government that gives everyone a basic safety net.
There were many things that Ron Paul had to say which were interesting and some of the things were clearly just common sense. I have no doubt that when Ron Paul was practicing medicine back before medicare or other socialized medicine was in acted in this country and someone got sick or injured and was unable to pay the churches did take of them. (Those were the resources he pointed to.) This was a role that the churches played for hundreds of years in our country. (Look at all the hospitals named after different saints or religious denominations.)
Furthermore, I do think that is something that Christian churches are called to do; take care of the poor, the sick and the needy. Mission work in our community is something my church is very much involved in. If someone comes into our church office (and this happens on a daily basis) and is in need of food or other assistance we help them in whatever way we can. We have food packets already made up that we give to them or refer them other agencies who might be able to help with their specific needs. We even provide public transportation passes to get them to those other agencies. It's part of our church budget. But the truth of matter is that we can't count on churches to take care of anyone and everyone who can't pay their medical bills like we were able to do 50 or 60 years ago. The cost of medical treatment is way too high. Not to mention the fact that church membership has dropped significantly over the past 30 to 40 years. If my church decided they wanted to pay all the bills for a person going through cancer treatment who is unable to pay, it would bankrupt our little church.
I just don't think it's feasible in this day and age to look to the churches to provide all the help to all the sick and the needy. The question then becomes, What do we do with all these people? The churches are already doing whatever they can, it's just not enough these days. Not everyone has relatives how are able to help them out either. I do believe in personal responsibility, but I don't want to see a country where we have to send people to debtors prisons or tell parents who can't afford to feed their children that they must give them up to orphanages. I'd hoped we were past those sort of things from history.
Last edited by ASB65; 09-13-2011 at 05:07 PM.
Those self-centered, misanthropic jerks usually end up on the wrong side of history.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Don't we have some obligation not only to act in direct, personal ways (when those are available) but also to vote for politicians who credibly promise to do govern humanely? We have no duty of loyalty to brutes and crooks.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
One of the ways that "the churches" used to pay for medical care was by running non profit hospitals.
Almost every city in America has at least one hospital that has or had a name associated with a religious group be it Presbyterian, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist ect.
And my point in bringing this up is to point out that for the most part these non profits have been transformed into the for profit model over the last 30 or so years. To the extent that this "good old days" model used to work it worked within a very different template from what is in effect now.
You can't squeeze a large square object into a round bottle that is smaller than it is.
Or perhaps those advocating private charity healthcare would like to abandon to for profit model?
Any takers?
Excellent point. They were non-profit hospitals back then. They are not anymore. I suppose that might be solution but who then picks up the slack when the non-profit hospitals can't afford to stay to open anymore? Like I said, medical care costs are a whole lot more now and we don't have as many church members putting money in the collection plate like they did back then.
What is curious is that no one asks how the government has raised the costs of medical care. No only that but medical costs started rising dramatically after medicare and medicaid were enacted.
You guys are as bad as the fundamentalist Christians you complain about all of the time. The only difference is the deity that you worship, in this case the government. Like them anyone who does not agree with your belief system is automatically demonized. I like how Tom Woods handled the problem because he knew what was headed his way and decided to beat them to the punch. You might want to look at this to understand that the financial condition of all of the welfare states is bad and getting worse. This is but one of the signs that the system is about to break down.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
Correction. I do not "worship the government." I simply recognize that it is a necessary human institution that can work pretty well if it serves the public interest. That it hasn't done so well in that area lately -- well, that can be rectified if we have the will to do it.
And look who's demonizing here? You're projecting. And you haven't addressed the justice issues, nor the failure of private institutions to do all the work in health care.
This is rich coming from somebody who worships the All-Consuming Moloch called "The Free Market".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Galen, I'm not trying to demonize anyone. I just don't think there any real easy answers. No, we can't count on the churches to be the charitable organization to take care of everyone anymore. They don't have the resources to do that. And our government doesn't either. We have reached the point of unsustainability. I was only pointing out that Ron Paul's answer (although not a bad idea) just isn't viable anymore in this day and age. It was a different world when he was young doctor back in the 60's. I have no real answers, but I know that his answer isn't the solution.
That's what the anti-choice people say.
Sorry, I'm not following your train of thought here. Could you clarify that statement?
Who has demonized you?
My post, which prompted your reply simply points out that the medical system that existed during the time that most hospitals were non profit can not work anymore. You simply can't guarantee investors the return that they're looking for if a for profit hospital does very much pro bono work at all.
And it's worse than that. Most private practice doctors now belong to healthcare networks where they too have to make the right numbers on a bottom line determined by forces beyond the doctor's control and disgression. Back in the days of church run hospitals it may have been possible to barter with the doctor. Sharon Angle actually suggested offering chickens and/or eggs in last year's campaign.
Going back to the mores of the 19th century is not a realistic option. In some ways you should be happy about this because healthcare has been commoditized. You can buy and sell healthcare stocks any day.
But because there is a need for a profit margin in this system, it makes returning to an earlier system impossible.
Maybe the government isn't the best answer. I would love to see a Libertarian model that goes beyond "offer the doctor a chicken". But so far National Health Systems in their various forms are the only ones that has produced cost effective results whereever they've been used. And they've been used everywhere in the developed world except the US.
Last edited by herbal tee; 09-14-2011 at 11:58 AM.
James has just suggested that one or more states are going to implement single-payer health care. The more I think about this, the more I wonder whether it indeed has possibilities. Here are some thoughts and questions that occur to me.
1. I think a great many people would like to live in such a state.
2. I think an awful lot of doctors would like to work in such a state.
3. It would cost a lot of money and it would have to be in a high-tax state, although if it worked well, both workers and businesses would come out ahead.
4. The big question is, what about businesses? Would they in fact be eager to re-locate into such a state?
James, the ball is in your court.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I guess my vision is that some state would say to the feds to give them all the federal revenue going to that state for Medicare and Medicaid and let the state take over the responsibility for all medical care in the state. The state would then begin with a public option but quickly would leave the insurance indemnity model behind and actually begin a brick and mortar health care system. It could build on pre-existing county health systems which exist in most parts of the country.
I am not sure who it would be popular with, but if you could show it reduced costs, I think it would spread like wildfire (actually I like my blooming crocus metaphor better). Some of the more conservative states would be the last to the party. But for this to work, you would have to get out of the insurance/fee for service model. It would have to appear more like Kaiser Permanente or Group Health in Seattle.
Our business problem is because we operate in four states, we need a national carrier. We had a great Kaiser program for our Atlanta employees at one time, but we had folks in North Carolina that had to drive 2 hours to get to an in-network hospital. We had to go with Aetna that had good coverage more or less everywhere. This would make it hard to take, eg just our CA employees, and put them into a single payer system. There are lots of problems, but the current system is likely to collapse so we better come up with something.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
I know you haven't, mostly because you can grasp the idea of limited resources and that perhaps government is not the best way to allocate resources. The people who throw around the term Social Darwinism can not handle these two concepts. Most people just see the checks that government writes and won't ask about any other consequences of the programs they advocate. They just assume that all you have to do to fix the problem is tax and spend some more.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
In China hospitals have what are called "death rooms" when a patient is uninsured and can't pay their bills they put them in that room to die. That is the worst case scenario that we will let people die. I think charities can step in there, but that isn't guaranteed. The Chinese are very distrusting of charities for good reason. American's are must trusting in that regard. (Meaning American's would probably still be a little better off)
I think Galen does make a good point though. Our health care system started costing more when medicare and medicade were started. Hypothetically speaking would prices drop if we just dropped those programs. My guess is that they would eventually drop and everything would even out after some growing pains. "Is it worth the risk?" is a very hard question in this case.
Last edited by pizal81; 09-15-2011 at 01:39 AM.
Correlation is not causation.
In the mid 1960's when Medicare started and soon after, a lot of expensive medical breakthroughs happened. For example, a dianogsis of cancer was practically a death sentence in the early 70's. Now we have high survivor rates for many cancers. And the same can be said for other diseases. But all of the research and medication costs a lot of money. And it costs a lot of money in countries that do have national health care. But they deliver it more cheaply than we do. In fact, Medicare has a lower overhead expense than private insurance.
Now, once again. I there any Libertarian solution that doesn't involve ideas like bartering with the doctor and pretending that the medical world of 1911 still exists in 2011?
The crickets are chirpring...or maybe I should say the chickens are clucking.
And they will soon come home to roost.
This is a topic that makes me very angry and emotional, so I've tried to avoid posting on this thread. But I feel so strongly about this. I do not see America converting to a single payer healthcare system anytime soon.
I work in health insurance and can tell you this. It's the biggest money making scam ever, and only exists to make a profit off human misery. Talk about a Ponzi scheme. Every day I hear the most horrible stories from members. My job is to analyze their claims, adjust them when necessary, but mainly my job is to find the loopholes so we don't have to pay their claims. We are talking about people who have lost everything they own, houses, everything, because they have become sick. The premiums they pay, even for the most basic policies, are absolutely insane. In return, their claims may (and probably will) still deny. One of the biggest problems for these people are pre existing conditions. They pay thousands --THOUSANDS--a month for insurance, only to find that because they didn't have prior coverage within a month of their coverage, that we will not pay their claims. Obamacare has eliminated that problem for children under 19 (for now), but for adults? There's no guarantee their claims will be paid. Oh, I could go on and on about the evils I hear about every day, but I won't because just thinking about it makes ME ill. Suffice to say that working in this industry has convinced me of the the true motives of health insurance companies, and their motives are evil. If you're fairly healthy you are almost better off without insurance at all.
Here's my feelings about the issue. Government may not be a panacea, and it may not be perfect, but why are we the ONLY industrialized nation that doesn't offer free or cheap health care to its citizens? Single payer health programs run by governments have a huge advantage over our system--they are not motivated by PROFIT. They are set up as a safety net for all their citizens. In America, health care is a profit making industry, like computers, cars and luxury items. Hospitals (which are ALL for profit now), doctors and the greedy health insurance companies are getting rich off human misery and illness. Think about it. It is not in their best interests to keep people well, or to find a cure, because then where would their livelihood come from? Their objective is to keep people just sick enough to keep needing their services, NOT on finding a cure. In what world are corporations less evil than governments?
When a person is faced with cancer or some other life threatening or debilitating disease, do they and their families REALLY NEED to also have to worry about bankruptcy and losing everything they own because of inability to pay their bills--or afford the exhorbitant rates of health insurance? Aren't they being faced with enough heartache already?
Apparently in America, the answer is no. How dare we let all those parasitic and unmotivated ill people get any kind of care for free? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a better job, or work three jobs to pay for health "care." So what that they have cancer and need chemo three times a week and can barely stand up, never mind earn their keep to stay alive? Why should poor and middle class people get a free ride and take tax money away from the rich and keep insurance companies from raking in profits so their CEOs can buy another yacht and a third house in Bali? Boo hoo! The 2 % at the top might have to pay more TAXES! That's not the American Way! Let's bring out the world's smallest violin.
I don't understand any society that thinks this way. I never have. The gap between the top 2% and everyone else is shameful--and embarrassing. We are becoming a third world country. We have the richest people in the world, and tens of millions of people who live an existence not much better than those some third world countries. People are starving and dying because of lack of opportunity. So I'm a bleeding heart liberal? Good, it's better than being a soulless social Darwinist. America has lost its heart and has lost its way. I suppose having a heart makes you a (gasp!) socialist! I guess that made Jesus a socialist too. These Randian types also often call themselves Christians. How can you reconcile Ayn Rand's social Darwinism and true Christian values like charity, compassion, unselfishness, and caring for the less fortunate, without expecting anything for yourself. Short answer-- you can't! Those who think you can are as deluded as those who insist the economy has recovered and we are not entering a super Depression far worse than the 1930s. I have called these soulless Ayn Rand followers Pharisees, but perhaps that's too harsh. Most of the sheep who vote this way are not in the top 2%--far from it in fact. Most of them are just ignorant and have drank the koolaid fed to them by the Powers That Be for too long. They don't know any better.
The Tea Partiers and wealthy Republicans act like free enterprise and the power of huge corporations over everyone else is a good thing, less evil than government. If they had their way, there would be NO government, just megacorporations running everything and probably watching everything we do too. There have been attempts to privatize the police, and fire departments! They want to tear down schools and libraries that give regular folks a chance at the American dream. Under their regime, nothing would be free, and everything from health care, to education, to your house being saved from fire or robbery would be run by the private companies motivated by profit rather than helping others. So tell me, how is this state of affairs less evil than government run programs paid for through taxation? The idea of an America with no government, and corporations running things with greed their only motive instead is a truly terrifying prospect to me. Give me socialism any day if that's the only choice! At least socialism, while admittedly misguided and often badly managed, attempts to achieve human equality and make life more bearable for the poor. Most European nations are not socialist countries anyway--they are social democracies that allow some wealth and as much free enterprise as you want but also attempt to make things more fair and help those who need it, rather than just letting less fortunate people who for whatever reason can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" suffer, starve and die. Now they want to take away social security and Medicare too. They got theirs, now screw you. Lovely.
We are not a free country--unless you are wealthy. Poverty, homelessness, and lack of access to health care and jobs is NOT freedom. It is tyranny. The way I see it, making a profit off the misery and suffering of others is the epitome of evil. It is perfectly fine to make a profit on certain goods and services. it is NOT okay to make a profit over things that are RIGHTS. Access to basic needs such as a decent education, health care, and a roof over one's head are not privileges , they are rights. America needs to get with the program and emulate countries like Canada, France and Germany that actually care about their citizens and try hard to make sure everyone's basic rights are met. Funny that we criticize those countries for their evil "socialism," yet I don't hear people who live in those places exactly complaining about their lot. Most of their people feel sorry for Americans, and make fun of us. They realize they are fortunate they do not have the type of government that is based on greed and wealth rather than being a good place to live for the majority of their citizens. Why are the only new immigrants those from third world countries? Doesn't that tell you something? And we're becoming another one.
I'm sorry, but I had to rant. I simply do not understand the thinking of these people, and I also don't see us changing to anything better soon. In fact, it's pretty obvious things are going to get a lot worse. It's pretty scary. As culturally bland as the 1950s may have been, I'd gladly return to that, if only because back then, the government actually cared about its people and built institutions to make that possible. I don't think the next High will be anything like the 1950s, however. I think it will be more like the Gilded Age or worse. I hope I'm wrong but I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about the direction we seem to be going in this turning. The only way out of this mess we are in is revolution. We have numbers on our side. We need to stop being pussies and fight for our basic rights as human beings.
Last edited by LateBoomer; 09-14-2011 at 10:22 PM.
