Role of Government in our lives....
Comments
-
the goodknow1 wrote:In my opinion, government's role should be the very basic - infrastructure, basic defense and creating and enforcing laws that protect us from each other.
the badOutOfBreath wrote:Put simple, I would like a democratic government of the people to provide and uphold all the goods and services the populace deem essential for all. The government should strive for the welfare of it's citizens. Health care, infrastructure, defence, schooling, child care, all of these things should in my view be provided or funded by the public government. If this baseline is provided for, only then can one talk of any sense of real liberty for the individual.
the uglypolaris wrote:i definitely believe in gov't oversight in many areas of our lives ... i do believe that if gov't is acting on the interests of the people - it is predominantly beneficial ... the problem now is that we think gov't manages our affairs poorly - often that is because they aren't acting in the interests of people rather corporations ....
The US government in its original form was a beautiful thing, adherent to the standard set forth by know1. One must recognize the genius of the founding fathers to understand the priciples of good government.
As for healthcare, it is bogged down by a beauracracy created by liberals. Until you create a smaller and more effective government which eliminates beauracratic barriers, health coverage will continue to be a problem. Putting healthcare in the hands of government is exactly the wrong thing to do. Smart government (key term) regulations on the industry is the right thing to do. But hey, if you'd like to pay for my lung disease, or somebody else's McDonalds-induced obesity, then be my guest.0 -
why are libertarians the most vicious human beings on the face of the planet? they hate poor people, fat people, and dying people, blame it all on the individual and blind themselves to what's actually contributing to all that stuff...a country that is increasingly following the rules of privatization and neoliberal corporate capitalism. I love how they suggest that they think differently than anyone else, but really just play into the ideals pushed on us since Ronald Reagan.
Weird...anyway socialism and capitalism are two perfect political systems in theory, but never work in practice b/c power is involved. Interestingly, however countries that have taken on socialism seem much better equipped to be sustainable in the future than capitalistic societies. Both systems have had successes and spectacular failures, but I think socialism is much more compelling than capitalism.0 -
prytoj wrote:Putting healthcare in the hands of government is exactly the wrong thing to do. Smart government (key term) regulations on the industry is the right thing to do. But hey, if you'd like to pay for my lung disease, or somebody else's McDonalds-induced obesity, then be my guest.
No one could possibly argue that the private sector has adequately handled the necessary industry of health coverage. You're absolutely right in that the solution in this case is smart government, as it is for practically every problem I can think of. However, I see many on the right calling for no further regulation at all, if not cutting even less regulation, which is just no longer possible to justify, in my opinion. It's just if the private sector has failed thus far, a new approach is called for. Entirely government-run health care is not the goal, but you'll notice many Democrats, including the President-elect, are not calling for that.0 -
digster wrote:No one could possibly argue that the private sector has adequately handled the necessary industry of health coverage. ...
However, I see many on the right calling for no further regulation at all, if not cutting even less regulation, which is just no longer possible to justify, in my opinion. It's just if the private sector has failed thus far, a new approach is called for...
Nothing is perfect, and the consumer should demand better always. It's much easier to justify privatisation if the concerned parties are more actively involved. The fact is, we're not as a whole. We're not writing our congress or local reps, we're not voting intelligently, we're not writing neslte and the fda about melamine in the baby formula, we're not demanding better of anything until we're directly affected. That's the trick. To say "it's not working in the hands of the private sector, so let's give it to the government" is a head scratcher for me.
And I think you could absolutely make the case for less regulation, but smarter and more principled regulation. If the system would adhere to smart, basic principles, and as a result not get bogged down in minutia, we could have a much more effective healthcare industry.
We should not be saying that all people are entitled to "healthcare." You pay in, you get. You don't pay in, you don't get. Kids excepted. I fail to see a justification for the belief that all people are entitled to healthcare as a birthright. You start making the rules up as you go, and all of a sudden you have to account for every "what if" scenario under the sun. classic liberalism.
But a more fundamental set of principles, and a commitment to adhere to those principles, is the best way for any institution discussed, in my view.
As for healthcare, smart regulation means better pricing. Better pricing means more people can get. More people getting means even better pricing (particularly when it comes to insurance), and so on, that's how it should be.0 -
How will this possibly happen when the people with the power and wealth own everything? You think that they are dumb? Anyway why do you not think people should get healthcare? To me it sounds like a basic human right, that all people can get, not some privilege for the relatively rich, or in your plan the somewhat wealthy. Of course though you all can fall back to the claim that "it's their choice", like everything else like being fat, in the army, selling drugs, and so on...classic libertarianism. Too busy being selfish to see two feet outside of yourself.prytoj wrote:Nothing is perfect, and the consumer should demand better always. It's much easier to justify privatisation if the concerned parties are more actively involved. The fact is, we're not as a whole. We're not writing our congress or local reps, we're not voting intelligently, we're not writing neslte and the fda about melamine in the baby formula, we're not demanding better of anything until we're directly affected. That's the trick. To say "it's not working in the hands of the private sector, so let's give it to the government" is a head scratcher for me.
And I think you could absolutely make the case for less regulation, but smarter and more principled regulation. If the system would adhere to smart, basic principles, and as a result not get bogged down in minutia, we could have a much more effective healthcare industry.
We should not be saying that all people are entitled to "healthcare." You pay in, you get. You don't pay in, you don't get. Kids excepted. I fail to see a justification for the belief that all people are entitled to healthcare as a birthright. You start making the rules up as you go, and all of a sudden you have to account for every "what if" scenario under the sun. classic liberalism.
But a more fundamental set of principles, and a commitment to adhere to those principles, is the best way for any institution discussed, in my view.
As for healthcare, smart regulation means better pricing. Better pricing means more people can get. More people getting means even better pricing (particularly when it comes to insurance), and so on, that's how it should be.0 -
ryan198 wrote:How will this possibly happen when the people with the power and wealth own everything? You think that they are dumb? Anyway why do you not think people should get healthcare? To me it sounds like a basic human right, that all people can get, not some privilege for the relatively rich, or in your plan the somewhat wealthy. Of course though you all can fall back to the claim that "it's their choice", like everything else like being fat, in the army, selling drugs, and so on...classic libertarianism. Too busy being selfish to see two feet outside of yourself.
How do you post an intelligent resonse to THAT?
But to the point, the good document says we have the basic or "inalienable" rights of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. That's pretty much it.
Pursue to your heart's content. If you fall short, sucks for you, or me.
"They say our love won't pay the rent....
Hey, It's evolution, babe.
Evolution babe."
No wait...how's that go?
Give jim-jed-jammy-jam and barn-froggy a kiss goodnite.0 -
What about somebody elses Cancer, Asthma, Arthritis, Cardio problems, Mental Health Issues and so on. If you are using those two examples of illnesses, purely to make a point about people being irresponsible for mistreating their bodies and why should you have to pay, then be careful what you wish for. Where do you draw the line? You can't. I believe that it is a basic human right that every human being should be entitled to reasonable affordable health care and that we should not stop educating people as to what is ultimately the best way to take care of our bodies.prytoj wrote:But hey, if you'd like to pay for my lung disease, or somebody else's McDonalds-induced obesity, then be my guest.
Who do you think pays for it when i get called to an accident scene, and there are multiple injured in say a two vehicle collision. Say one car is full of kids, speeding and not paying attention to the road, and the other is a family just coming home from a days outing. All are seriously injured. Who do i go to first? Using your little scenario it wouldn't be the speeding driver, i bet.
Oh and the correct answer. Whoever is the most seriously inujred until backup arrives.
Sorry buddy, whether you like it or not, you are already paying for it in one way or another.0 -
Pj_Gurl wrote:What about somebody elses Cancer, Asthma, Arthritis, Cardio problems, Mental Health Issues and so on. If you are using those two examples of illnesses, purely to make a point about people being irresponsible for mistreating their bodies and why should you have to pay, then be careful what you wish for. Where do you draw the line? You can't. I believe that it is a basic human right that every human being should be entitled to reasonable affordable health care and that we should not stop educating people as to what is ultimately the best way to take care of our bodies.
Who do you think pays for it when i get called to an accident scene, and there are multiple injured in say a two vehicle collision. Say one car is full of kids, speeding and not paying attention to the road, and the other is a family just coming home from a days outing. All are seriously injured. Who do i go to first? Using your little scenario it wouldn't be the speeding driver, i bet.
Oh and the correct answer. Whoever is the most seriously inujred until backup arrives.
Sorry buddy, whether you like it or not, you are already paying for it in one way or another.
This is precisely the problem with the liberal ideology on healthcare (big shocker).
You always have the what ifs that seek to distort sound, basic principles.
And true, we are paying for people's poor choices, which is another libereal tenet.
You know, when you get down to it, a health plan isn't really that expensive relative to other things. For example, healthcare for my wife and kids runs me about 3'n change a month. Pretty good coverage, not cheap, but reasonable. I'd like the health industry to be a little more efficient, and I'll always take cheaper too, but perspective. And I'd be able to get on that plan for no extra charge if I cared to quit the cancer sticks. Choices. But, I can assure you I'll not be taking a single government dime in a worst case scenario. I'm like 7up there.
You can drive the fancy car, or get yourself an AtoBer and get some health coverage. Choices. There's no such thing as free, I don't care what they tell you. You can pay out of pocket, or you can pay with your freedom.0 -
You say we always have the 'what ifs' that seek to distort sound and basic priniciples. The problem with that, as i see it, is that the what ifs do happen.prytoj wrote:This is precisely the problem with the liberal ideology on healthcare (big shocker).
You always have the what ifs that seek to distort sound, basic principles.
And true, we are paying for people's poor choices, which is another libereal tenet.
You know, when you get down to it, a health plan isn't really that expensive relative to other things. For example, healthcare for my wife and kids runs me about 3'n change a month. Pretty good coverage, not cheap, but reasonable. I'd like the health industry to be a little more efficient, and I'll always take cheaper too, but perspective. And I'd be able to get on that plan for no extra charge if I cared to quit the cancer sticks. Choices. .You can drive the fancy car, or get yourself an AtoBer and get some health coverage. Choices. There's no such thing as free, I don't care what they tell you. You can pay out of pocket, or you can pay with your freedom.
Again, that's easy to say when you are not in that situation isn't it. What about if it was one of your children? Could you sit back and watch them suffer and die a painful death rather than seeking out help for them?prytoj wrote:But, I can assure you I'll not be taking a single government dime in a worst case scenario. I'm like 7up there..0 -
Pj_Gurl wrote:You say we always have the 'what ifs' that seek to distort sound and basic priniciples. The problem with that, as i see it, is that the what ifs do happen.
Again, that's easy to say when you are not in that situation isn't it. What about if it was one of your children? Could you sit back and watch them suffer and die a painful death rather than seeking out help for them?
The what ifs are the rare exception. They do happen, they suck, but that's not our problem. If we make it our problem, the everyone's gonna have a what if. You can see it already. I got a neighbor (who I really like as people), but they're obese, the dad's a self-employed plumber contractor, makes decent scratch, and they get $590/month in food stamps. It's getting rediculous with the enabling.
If one of my children get sick, they are well protected and will have the best of medical care. My sacrifices ensure that. Choices. But kids should have health coverage anyway, that's not something I would argue. If their parents don't have the means to cover themselves, I'm good with them living with their poor choices. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Healthcare could and should be cheaper, that we can all agree on.
Your language is so emotional, "suffer and die a painful death" c'mon, let's get objective and philosophise a little. You seem pretty smart, but you always get so dramatic. Just chill.0 -
I respect what you are saying and in a way i admire you for your steadfast and honest views that you will do anything to take care of those you love. Sometimes life doesn't always go as you plan, i guess that all i'm saying, and i think to say you will never take a handout is probably a little silly.prytoj wrote:Your language is so emotional, "suffer and die a painful death" c'mon, let's get objective and philosophise a little. You seem pretty smart, but you always get so dramatic. Just chill.
As to my language being so emotional, i dunno. I don't mean to over dramatize and i can't even see that's what i am doing. I'm just speaking from the heart you know. Maybe it's my line of work and the things i see and experience there. They are real and those things do happen. I'd pretty much do anything for anyone and i do always try to see the good in people. Even tossers. It's definitely got me a fair bit of negative feedback around here lately. I'm quite often being told not to take things personally or to take a chill pill lately.0 -
anywho, back on topic, I couldn't have said it better than thisknow1 wrote:In my opinion, government's role should be the very basic - infrastructure, basic defense and creating and enforcing laws that protect us from each other.
I think the world would be a much better place if we let individuals and companies take care of the rest. With the drastically lower taxes, we could afford to help our fellow people... and do so in a much more effective and efficient manner.0 -
Commy wrote:Our healthcare system is one of the worst among developed nations.
um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth. you have to get to #24 before a non-US hospital is ranked.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
1 University of Michigan Health System
2 University of Texas Medical Branch
3 NYU Medical Center
4 University of Kansas Medical Center
5 University of Virginia Health System
6 Johns Hopkins Medicine
7 Vanderbilt Medical Center
8 Massachusetts General Hospital
9 University of Rochester Medical Center
10 MD Anderson Cancer Center
11 University of Miami Hospital & Clinic
12 Texas Tech Health Sciences Center
13 University California Davis Health System
14 Columbia University Medical Center
15 University of Maryland Medical Center
16 University of Kentucky Academic Medical Center
17 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
18 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
19 University of Arkansas Medical Center
20 University of Connecticut Health Center
21 University of Nebraska Medical Center
22 Children's Hospital Boston
23 Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center
24 Taipei Veterans General Hospital - TaiwanCommy wrote:Its broken, its costly, it has more red tape than many socialized European countries.
broken, costly, and red tape? um can you imagine how much this would INCREASE if the government was actually in charge of HealthcareCommy wrote:Most Americans support a government run Healthcare program (over 65%, according to this poll http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml)
I will agree that most Americans do what some form of government run Healthcare. ok great, just leave me out of it.0 -
pearljamfan1212 wrote:um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth. you have to get to #24 before a non-US hospital is ranked.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.htmlTHANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote:
thanks. thats an interesting read. but I cant find when it was written. do you know?0 -
pearljamfan1212 wrote:thanks. thats an interesting read. but I cant find when it was written. do you know?
In 2000.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote:In 2000.
thats a long time ago.0 -
pearljamfan1212 wrote:thats a long time ago.
It is. But I think it's more relevant that a ranking of hospitals you posted. Especially when we're talking about health care, and we are.
Just read what the ranking you posted is about:
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/about_rank.htmlTHANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote:It is. But I think it's more relevant that a ranking of hospitals you posted. Especially when we're talking about health care, and we are.
I dont think a report that is almost a decade old is very relevant. are you trying to argue that America doesnt have some of the best hospitals in the world?Collin wrote:
oh. I'm having a hard time finding another source of rankings that show the US & World. would like to see one though.0 -
pearljamfan1212 wrote:I dont think a report that is almost a decade old is very relevant. are you trying to argue that America doesnt have some of the best hospitals in the world?
oh. I'm having a hard time finding another source of rankings that show the US & World. would like to see one though.
No, I'm merely pointing out that your list is completely irrelevant. It's not about health care at all. Your link certainly doesn't prove that "it's the best in the world."
The most recent data by a credible or relevant source suggests otherwise.
Furthermore, the WHO research focused on different factors. A much better way of judging a country's quality of health care. Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help