Posted on 09/03/2004 7:58:04 AM PDT by ohioconservative
My apologies upfront for this vanity; however, I wanted to see what other FReepers would suggest as to how I can discredit another poster's pro-free health care for everyone stance.
I would be most grateful if you're able to direct me to any links or post really, really good one-liners. One-liners are sometimes the most effective since you can reply to paragraph after paragraph of socialist nonsense and make a very good point in 7 to 15 words.
Here's this guy's post. Any comments would be highly appreciated. Thank you very much....
It's basically state run, funded by our taxes. It's the biggest employer in Europe, possibly the world. The issue of rich or poor doesn't come into it, under the NHS everybody is treated the same.
There is private health care here of course, which those who can afford it are able to choose if waiting times are long on the NHS (which they often can be)
But private health care companies have their own hospitals, so it's not like paying to jump the queue...it's a different system.
It's not a perfect system by any means..there is too much bureaucracy and middle management. And there are long waiting lists due to bed blocking by old folks who have nowhere to go, because Thatcher's wretched conservative government's push for privitisation meant the closure of thousands of state run care homes.
But the principle is still good nevertheless. It sends shudders down my spine to think that one day the money in my bank may determine whether I get adequate healthcare or not.
That's why I pray to God that the Tories never get back into power and Tony Blair remembers the socialist principles of his once great political party.
"It sends shudders down my spine to think that one day the money in my bank may determine whether I get adequate healthcare or not."
And change it to:
"It sends shudders down my spine to think that one day the government may be responsible for my existence."
What about the line:
Democrats try to sell the idea that people have a right to health care. If this were true, doctors would not have a right to quit their job.
Is that a good reply or pretty bad? I'm trying to blow this cat out of the water with short stabs vs. long debates.
Again, many thanks...
You've seen gov't housing. Do you want gov't health care?
Based on this very first sentence, I recommend not even wasting your time. This person is detached from reality and/or has no economic acumen at all. Either way it's a hopeless cause. (HINT - there's no such thing as a free lunch).
http://usconservatives.about.com/library/weekly/aa031101a.htm
The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacement, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain each year. Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of health care. In Russia patients over 60 years are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 years are often denied even elementary forms of the health care. In the U.K., in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who were 55 years old were refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. At age 65, 45 percent at the centers were denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely received any medical attention at these centers. In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups-below 45; 45-65; and over 65, in terms of their access to health care. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the 'active taxpayers,' enjoy priority treatment.
Short stabs and zingers aren't going to convert anyone to your side.
There is one sure-fire way to ensure that you never convert anyone to your way of thought: think to yourself that your way of thinking is inheriently superior to theirs and that their position is foolish and wrong. You'll go through life as a smug feeling failure.
The key to conversion is finding out the value that the person desires. What is important to him? Security (knowing that he'll have health care if it needs it)? Quality of care (knowing that he will have decent care if he needs it)?
The key is finding out what series of facts, or situations, would make him change his mind about the issue. (All right, if it were proven to you that private charities gave adequate health care to the poor, would that change your mind about government-funded socialism? If not, what would change your mind. Would anything?)
The point is not to zing someone and feel like you scored some points on the vast cosmic conservative scoreboard, but about converting someone to the cause of liberty. Socialism is wrong because it is slavery, plain and simple. If individualism is a value, then you cannot be a socialist. The two are directly in conflict. You don't tell them this directly--you have to let them draw that conclusion on their own. Ask them questions and point them in the direction of the answer, but when they come to the realization on their own, you've won a conversion for life.
Best,
Publius
"Over here (in the U.K.) we dont pay........funded by our taxes."
Idiotic socialist!
Tell him to discuss socialism with any person that has lived under a socialist regime! He will quickly learn about pure evil.
One-liner: "If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's 'free'."
Analogy: Consider the one-size-fits-all grocery stores of the Soviet Union. One brand of bread, one brand of peanut butter, one brand of sausage. All mediocre. Sometimes the shelves are empty. That's socialized food: no competition, no incentive to excel, and no choice for consumers. Do you want that in health care? (Should we disband private, for-profit food concerns like Safeway, King Soopers, Albertsons, Price Chopper, and Vons? And just have single-payer food distribution centers that have the world-renowned Government Cheese and other products of similar quality? Surely, people being able to eat is far too important to allow what's in people's bank account determine what they can eat.
If you think healthcare is expensive NOW, just wait 'till it's FREE!
Best response is to ask your socialist buddies up north why they come here when they are really sick.
Wow, you must have a great mind too!
Over here (in the U.K.) we dont pay health insurance or pay for operations or anything like that. No you do: that's the biggest lie promulgated by socialism: once you grow up under it, you get the perception that what what government provides is free.
It is not: you pay for it out of your taxes. So the question is not whether it is free but through which company to buy that health care with YOUR money: a private hospital or U.k. Parliament.
If you pay $1,000 in taxes and charged $1,000 for an operation, the question is who delivered a better service. Governments are notoriously inefficient --- across culture and across times. You will definitely get a better service for the same money in the private sector because it has incentives to do so and is subject to competition. Centralized (government) providers do not: no competition and no incentives.
But the problem with the poster's statement is deeper. For what he really likes is to receive $2,000 worth of services while paying $1,000 in taxes. See, if he had to buy it privately and had only 1,000 in the bank, he would not be able to get it:
It sends shudders down my spine to think that one day the money in my bank may determine whether I get adequate health care or not.
So what he really likes is that it is YOUR money in the bank that will pay HIM. The government will confiscate YOUR money and pay HIM for HIS operation. That is what he really likes.
And, how is health care different from anything else? How about, "It sends shudders down my spine to think that one day the money in my bank may determine whether I get adequate ROOM and BOARD? Should the government provide that too --- just because you happen to be accustomed to a three-bedrrom flat? What about transportation? I hate to see myself unable to drive a car when I am 80; perhaps the government should provide me with ADEQUATE transportation?
Most importantly, this socialist has no clue that government does not provide (create) anything: it distributes what has already been created. This guy simply like to be Paul who gets Peter's money taken from Peter by the government.
On a constructive note, there is a way to ensure that you have adequate health care: insurance. It too redistributes risk of the many to provide benefits to the few that need them. That possibility does not even enter the brain of a socialist.
Finally, all socialists always point a static picture: here is the wealth as we have it, let's see how we can "fairly" (and fairness is always defined by THEM; they KNOW, you see) redistribute them. The crucial point is --- and that is a notion well known in economics as the equity-efficiency dilemma --- that a redistribution of wealth removes incentives for further wealth creation. It is better for ALL to have "rich" people around. Not "rich" by birth but by upward social mobility --- the self-made kind.
Europeans almost universally miss that point: it is easy for them to be socialist --- "see," they say, "we are socialist and still have a high standard of living" --- because almost all innovation (and, incidentally, defense) for the last 50 years came from the U.S. From direct transfer of knowledge to educating their elites --- the U.S. has done all that. If you make U.S. socialist, as Kerry and even more so Clintons want, that source will dry up, and the socialist West will follow the path of the Soviet Union. Innovation requires incentives, which socialism not only does not provide but even removes.
Now, was that poster on a conservative board? What I wonder makes him think he is a conservative? It is not even his conclusions --- it is his reasoning that betrays him as an ignorant socialist.
The government cannot grant a right. If the government were to go bankrupt tomorrow how are you supposed to 'exercise your right' to healthcare? You can't. Therefore healthcare is not a right.
The reality is that it has nothing to do with "free" health care! This is a myth. Health care like all other gov't services are funded through higher taxes. Even so, here in canada, 40 % of all services are offered by private health service. What these socialists don't want to tell you is that the issue is not health care. Most people couldn't care less who the health care provider is: the gov't or a private hospital. What people want is adequate access to healthcare. Socialists always invoke the non-insured as an arguement for gov't healthcare, as if it is inhumane to have people uninsured. The fact is that in Canada socialized medicine is founded on a premise that the gov't is best suited to provide this service and not private enterprise. This is the problem! We can't even have a debate on the issue because the gov't deemed it "un-canadian" to even consider the debate. Americans may have issues with their healthcare but you will never see US politicians come here for their healthcare needs, Canadian one go to the states all the time. The operating word behind "Universal Healthcare" is "Re-distribution of wealth". I for one want none of it!
***You've seen gov't housing. Do you want gov't health care?***
EXCELLENT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
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.