Posted on 09/28/2004 1:19:47 PM PDT by johnnyb325
A-ha. I think this is a big difference between conservatives and progressives. We simply can't accept that kind of Darwinism in society. We have to safeguard those at the bottom. To us it's the difference between civilization and the law of the jungle.
Which reminds me: I've read "nature" a couple of times in this thread. Perhaps conservatives prefer some sort of survival of the fittest. letting the poor fizzle out in order to achieve a better society. Progressives would prefer to bring the poor up a level or two, at the expense of those at the top, and in that way, create a better world.
Again, they both have their plusses and minusses. Who is "right?" Good question.
Oh, no, I'm not a libertarian.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"
Theocracy? The US is a theocracy???
whoops, scratch that last post.
Read "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell.
You're one of 'em.
Or what if God bestows the right to be Jew-free? Didn't they call that the Inquisition?
God is hardly any safer a bet than we are.
It's 2:30 am here. I'm afraid you'll have to fill me in. :-)
The method that socialized medicine uses to hold down costs is to deny service. Which would you rather have service or bills. You don't get both. Socialized medicine is basicly a triage, it takes so long to see a specialist that it is often too late for expensive treatments. Vermont has socialized medicine and my sister-in-law has been waiting for nine months for back surgery. The pain is so bad that her husband has taken her to the emergency room several times and all they keep telling her is to take her morphine until they can get her in. The woman does day care in her home.
There will always be horror stories in any system. The Europeans, for example, gasp at the typical story of the American with a bullet wound (a US specialty) being turned away at the hospital because he or she has no insurance.
The post about Japan goes to show that successful system of socialized medicine appears to be feasible. Whether or not it would work in the US is another question, but its soundness as a system looks pretty good. Europe also has health care systems that serve its citizens reasonably well.
Of course they can all be improved upon, but I think the question is how to solve the specific health care problems that each country has; rather than disparaging one system or the other. We can learn a lot from other countries: by their mistakes, but also by their successes.
Hey- whoa! It's way past my bedtime. Nighty night everyone.
Thanks for taking me in and keeping things so polite. I hope to chat again soon.
You are laboring under the mistaken belief that the United States currently has a free market in medical care. However, federal and state governments are already deeply involved. A strong case can be made that government interference is largely responsible for the inefficiencies of the system.
Part of the problem with government versus private charity is that people involved in these systms of wealth transfer don't see themselves a being helped by someone who wants to help them; but they view help given them as something that just happens as part of the system. And those providing the help are simply cogs in the machine.
In short it's dehumanizing.
OK, one wee reply...
"However, we do not believe that government is the best tool for meeting the needs of the poor."
Fair enough. Though I think that there are probably areas in which the government is better, and other areas where the market is better. I say use the best tool for the job!
"Grand schemes to achieve equality at the expense of liberty result in societies that are neither equal nor free. One need only look at the bloody history of the last century to see that this is so."
Right. But I'm not talking about any grand scheme here, just comparatively little things like nationalized health care, welfare, free education, etc. I don't think anything like that has ever started a war.
Now off to bed... Good night.
I don't think a little social Darwinism has ever started a war either. Political Darwinism is another matter, and is the method by which you "progressives" seek to advance your agenda. The end doesn't justify the means, and will do more harm than good in the long run.
I Know, The "Trial Lawyers" who associate Themselves with Medical Malpractice will Probably be VERY Disappointed; but the REAL FACTS ARE that a LARGE PERCENTAGE of "Indigent Patients" are Treated with FREE MEDICATIONS--Donated by an Appropriate Drug Company!
Doc
Then why do you have the Libertarian presidential candidate's URL on your homepage?
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.