Posted on 10/11/2010 2:10:35 PM PDT by darkside321
Sorry but i have read so many topics about the so called socialized health care that i don´t get it at all. For me (european) it just looks like both "sides" are just lying 24/7. For example the "democrats" try to pick up the best of european health care and try to tell every one that its like this is all the way. And the republicans pick up the negative sides of different european countries and try to portray it like it would be all the same.btw. Don´t get me wrong. Both factors exist in some form but both are not true. So to take an pretty offensive point of view. I really think that some form of socialized health care would not be something really bad for the US. I mean we have it hear and it works! Of course not perfect (far away from it) but in the end it really works. So why not adopt some good ideas (and try to leave the bad out) for america? Again i would really enjoy having a discussion. greetings
IBTZ?
This always facinates me; that people in other countries want to discuss our internal policies; policies that do not affect them at all! Most Americans would never dream of going on a European website and debate the benefits or short fall of their policies. I find it so odd the rest of the world feels it is alright to debate and discuss our way of doing things! It’s like debating with a neighbor whether he should build a garage or not; Or buy a new car or not; Or get a divorce or not; when he never asked your opinion!
I don’t know where’hear’ is for you, but ‘here’ for me is the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA and we’re not socialists! That’s why socialized medicine is not welcome. We believe in free enterprise and a market based economy, not government mandated economic policy. You can keep your socialism wherever you are.
First, where is “hear”? To discuss the relative merits of a socialized medical system requires a starting point, for one thing. And expectations relative to what is already assumed to be part of any current system that is to be changed in a variety of ways. And maybe more important than anything is the invalidity of comparing one country to another if one is much smaller or far less diverse than another. These things are very important components in any discussion of what “works” or what might be successful.
As a result, Americans are reluctant to turn over responsibility for their health care and control of their most personal decisions to nameless bureaucrats in a government which has no track record for success in any of the large endeavors it has taken on previously. Look at the Post Office, so-called "public" education, etc.
With that said, perhaps Americans wish to hold fast to the Founders' ideas of liberty instead of allowing its leaders to plunge it into European-style socialism.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, which includes these excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay entitled, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Hope this is helpful to your thoughtful consideration of the question you have posed.
Did you miss the story out of Arizona about their MediCare coverages?
1. It is never right to take money, by force of law, from one person and give it to another - the very definition of “social” in Europe.
2. European Health Care does NOT work - at least not as claimed.
3. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
4. The US Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to legislate in this area.
5. “no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
do I really need to continue?
This always facinates me; that people in other countries want to discuss our internal policies; policies that do not affect them at all! Most Americans would never dream of going on a European website and debate the benefits or short fall of their policies. I find it so odd the rest of the world feels it is alright to debate and discuss our way of doing things! It’s like debating with a neighbor whether he should build a garage or not; Or buy a new car or not; Or get a divorce or not; when he never asked your opinion!
I’m going to assume that this is an honest query,so I have one in return: what,specifically,do you mean by your system “working.”?
Jefferson hoped that "this ball of liberty" would "roll round the world." Reagan described it as a "beacon." And, the Frenchman Bartholdi's beautiful Lady Liberty seems to indicate that, at one point in time, at least, others understood why America was a special place, providing something unique and desireable.
Sadly, the current Administration longs for a totally different kind of America--one which is more like the Old World from which our ancestors came.
What country, Dark? I ask, bec. I am not familiar w/ any Euro plan that works w/out enormous taxation or reduced services and meds,or the need for additional private insurance. And all, as far as I know, are going broke; so I don’t count that as working. What country?
I don’t know where’hear’ is for you, but ‘here’ for me is the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA and we’re not socialists! That’s why socialized medicine is not welcome. We believe in free enterprise and a market based economy, not government mandated economic policy. You can keep your socialism wherever you are.
There’s nothing wrong w/ your asking about something related to the US. Discussion is good, and there’s too little of it. Lots of lectures, but not much honest discussion.
True. No healthcare system is free or even inexpensive. Maybe our resistance to turning over medicine to the govt has a lot to do w/ losing a huge chunk of control over our decisions - ones that we assume we should have and want to keep. And that’s only one element in all of this.
“So why not adopt some good ideas (and try to leave the bad out) for america?”
The “good” ideas out of Europe are all different ways for the government to control citizens health care thru increased government power.
My problem is with the notion of government power. I am deeply uncomfortable with the government having control over life-and-death decisions in addition to having guns and levying taxes and regulating every puddle of water in the US (which they do). I am deeply uncomfortable with the notion of the government assuming control over an additional 1/7th of the US economy. I am deeply uncomfortable with congress legislating health care when none of the enumerated powers of Congress remotely cover the issue.
Even if the “idea” looks like a good one on paper, we are at the point where the government MUST be rolled back or we end up in a soft-fascist regime, with no place to go but a hard one.
At the point where I see the government reduced by, say, 50-80%, I am ready to start talking about where to draw the line on further chops. But I am not prepared to give, even a little bit, on growing this monster further.
So it’s not really a discussion on, find a “good” one here and eliminate a “bad” one there. Entire departments must be eliminated (start with Energy, Education, HHS and NEA). I will oppose every growth of the monster until some fundamental structural changes are made—no matter how good the growth may seem on paper.
What country, Dark? I ask, bec. I am not familiar w/ any Euro plan that works w/out enormous taxation or reduced services and meds,or the need for additional private insurance. And all, as far as I know, are going broke; so I don’t count that as working. What country?
I, too, find it amazing that foreigners find the need to comment on our way of life. Having said that, Darkside can ask any question he wants in an attempt to learn and discuss. Firstly, NO ONE lives under a pure communist or capitalist system ANYWHERE-There are merely degrees of difference between countries. Because Europe was the progenitor of socialism and communism, those systems were attempted there first, and we naturally look to them for comparison. We do have “socialized” medicine in the form of Medicaid and the military. Perhaps we should compare their effectiveness vs. the private sector.
I, too, find it amazing that foreigners find the need to comment on our way of life. Having said that, Darkside can ask any question he wants in an attempt to learn and discuss. Firstly, NO ONE lives under a pure communist or capitalist system ANYWHERE-There are merely degrees of difference between countries. Because Europe was the progenitor of socialism and communism, those systems were attempted there first, and we naturally look to them for comparison. We do have “socialized” medicine in the form of Medicaid and the military. Perhaps we should compare their effectiveness vs. the private sector.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.