Wanna fight?

[Antigen]

http://fornits.com/anonanon/freedom.m3u

[Oz girl]

Sure why not. I love these fights

Listened to about 1/2. Was intrigued by this idea that Liberalism is the only truly moral political philosophy. I could not disagree more. The narrator seemed to confuse any kind of socialism or govt intervention with hardcore communism. I would say that in the abscence of any govt intervention at all it is the market that is in charge. This does not make things any more free for the people who lack money or education because they have no power. If any thing govt should be there to civilise total freemarket liberalism so that everyone gets a fair go.

i note he honed in on russia and the berlin wall but totally ignored countries that have traditionally had some tendencies toward socialism like Canada The netherlands, France and New Zealand. All of these places provide free and comprehensive health cover and in most cases ( i dont know about Canada) publically accessable, if not totally free higher education. But they dont have beaurocrats in any of those places marching about stifling peoples basic rights. Just higher taxes.  If anything most of those places are pretty liberal socially

[69]

Okay just finished it. I liked it, and agreed with pretty much everything he said.

Liberty is the only moral political philosophy. I agree, I think the only political philosophy that comes close to the nature of man is a lack of one completely with a healthy understanding of freedom. Something anyone locked up against their will without charges will understand very quick. Dangerous thoughts this man has, something a lot of people fear I am sure.

[Oz girl]

Oh i would agree that civil liberties are vital. locking children up unless they are a bonifde danger to themselves or the community is never the answer and people should have the freedom to eat, injest, sleep with and worship whatever and whoever they want.
 
But most socialist countries do not actually stop anyone from doing this. Look @ the netherlands. There is not a lot that you cant do over there. its citizens enjoy greater civil liberties than both the US and Australia which are both more economically liberal. total economic liberalism means that the poor are more likely to stay that way and lack access to vital social services like medicine and education. The middle enjoy such privileges but struggle and spend a big portion of their income on things like a college fund or health insurance. The rich are free to do whatever they want so real freedom is limited to one group. Give me socila liberalism any day. Sudsidise medicine and education. Provide a high standard of social services, mandate paid maternity and paternity leave and watch a wider group of people enjoy a higher standard of living. I am happy to pay a little more tax to do this.

[Antigen]

More than that. In a free market, people who don't have money have the freedom to get some. I used to answer phones for doctors for a living. One thing I noticed about the much vaunted 'free' Canadian healthcare system is that wealthy Canadians had a tendency to schedule high end procedures, like major surgery and such, in American hospitals w/ American doctors. I already knew about the 'free' services from years ago, having hung out w/ a salty old sailboat bum who had spent some years shipping his wealth out of Canada $9,999 at a time.

America has such controls as you mention. Dunno why people insist on pretending otherwise. I just heard of a new one, and this is a real knee slapper. They're timbering the hell out of West Virginia these days, so the market is getting competitive. Along come the helpful regulators with a new requirement that anyone who uses a chain saw in earning a living must complete a safety training course at their own expense and then apply for certification (permission from the state to continue earning a living). Gee, I know that's all about protecting us from ourselves, not about protecting a limited market from competition, right children? LOL

Pass! I'll take a zero for today, thanks. Now then, were's that field mill? I'm `a build myself a damned cabin next spring, and I might even have the umption to pay a guy who knows what he's doing with a board ripper to help me do it. And I'll be god damned if the state will get any of what I pay him.

[Oz girl]

How do these poor people get money? Breaking into the establishment. Working for an extremely low minimum wage because regardless of what kind of profit their employer is making they will pay what they want? By picking it from a money tree?

And yes wealthy Canadians may travel to the US for high end treatment just as the Australian middle classes take out private health insurance so that they can stay in a private hospital and be offered a better lunch menu and more relaxed rules about visiting hours. But at the end of the day if any person rich or poor has a heart attack in any country with a comprehensive and well funded public health system they have immediate access to medical treatment. In countries without this they are reliant on the benevolence of the local hospital. How is this equitable?

Also smaller govt does not necessarily equal greater civil liberties. Look at the US in this regard, or Australia under Howards move toward smaller govt. In spite to public health and education funding cuts we have now parliamentary debates about whether we should move away from no fault divorce. Our PM  openly admitted he would be let down if his son was gay and the New anti terror laws are the most limiting to individual liberty in our Federal history. And it is  worse where you are in that Abstenece training is replacing comprehensive sex education in some of your public schools and many towns have youth cerfews. Yet your republican party is even more gung ho about small govt. Where is the freedom?

I dont think it unreasonable that a govt mandates a living minimum wage, provides public higher education which is accessable to all or  uses the tax dollar to provide free health to all. These things should be basic human rights. This is why i pay my taxes. What govt should not get to do is mandate how people live their private lives. And there is little correlation between how little a govt spends or regulates big industry and how much liberty the populace has. This is what democratic govt is for.

[69]

America not only provides health care free of charge to the poor, but to people who are not even citizens of this country. Anyone who has been to an ER in southern california will know what I am talking about, you are going to wait all night. Same with public schools, half of the kids don't even speak english now. America likes to put off an image of self reliance of individuality but we are just as socialist as the rest of you guys, I just think we look to it as a last resort to prevent suffering than as a political ideology all by itself because we've seen the ramifications of that, and the economy is important to most people. but since this country got a taste of socialism back during ww2 people liked it, even if they didn't know what to call it. Poor peoople and illegal immigrants have every right to walk into the most expensive private hospital in town and the hospital is obligated by law to treat them. so, really, what is more equitable... poor people who have to go to state hospitals and receive second rate care and service, or poor people who can go wherever they want.

[try another castle]

speaking as someone who is on medicare and medicaid for disability, my insurance coverage now is better than any private insurance I had before. Of course, the drawback is that I'm... well... disabled and poor.


We'll see what happens in terms of budget cuts, but for now, things are ok.

The issue really isn't the social services, it's the ridiculousness of the private insurance companies. But they are technically private businesses, so any free market person is going to agree that there should be little regulation. And I really couldn't argue as to what changes would need to be made anyway.

I know that when (hopefully) I am able to go back to work, I would HAVE to find a job with a benefits package, because no private insurance company would take me if I applied directly. If I won the lottery tomorrow and had millions of dollars to pay any premium a company would set, they still wouldn't take me. I'm too high risk. It makes me nervous, but I also don't want to be a ward of the state for the rest of my life.

[Oz girl]

the following articles also point out that it is ordinary working citizens who also lack basic health coverage in the US. While Medicaid is there to support those on an invalid pension and the rich dont need it one way or the other because they can just buy whatever they want, there is a large group of Americans who are not covered and who lack essential health services.

Even if in some states of the US hospitals are abliged to treat those who come through the ER dept regardless of their ability to pay, what about all the other medical conditions which are more minor? Nobody is abliged to treat those. A patient needs to either be so poor they get medicaid, insured or willing to pay a big bill which not everyone can afford.

 No completely unregulated company for instance, has any incentive to cover a patient with a condition that will cost them money. Why would they? So this person needs to find the money from somewhere. And it is difficult to work hard when you are ill. This is why universal health coverage should be a right of citizenship anywhere and capitalism should to some extent be civilised by properly enforced regulation.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/index.cfm

http://www.physorg.com/news67704319.html

http://statecoverage.net/coverage/index.htm

http://statecoverage.net/coverage/why.htm

[try another castle]

One thing I have to say about medicaid is that it's income standards are antiquated. They haven't been updated, since like, the 50s. (This was told to me by a medicaid staff, so I am inclined to believe her.) So they are essentially expecting someone to meet the 50s standards of living below the poverty line. If their income is higher, then they might either get rejected outright, or do share of cost, which is similar to a deductible. And the share of cost is normally quite a large sum of money.

[69]

Even if in some states of the US hospitals are abliged to treat those who come through the ER dept regardless of their ability to pay, what about all the other medical conditions which are more minor? Nobody is abliged to treat those. A patient needs to either be so poor they get medicaid, insured or willing to pay a big bill which not everyone can afford.

No completely unregulated company for instance, has any incentive to cover a patient with a condition that will cost them money. Why would they? So this person needs to find the money from somewhere. And it is difficult to work hard when you are ill. This is why universal health coverage should be a right of citizenship anywhere and capitalism should to some extent be civilised by properly enforced regulation.

they arent unregulated, another myth of americanism. the healthcare industry is heavily regulated, and has the bearacracy to prove it. its federal law that a hospital cannot refuse to help a person, so it's all fifty states, this includes illegal immigrants, whoever is here. yes they go to the ER for minor issues, like the flu or a cut because they don't have a regular doctor, hence my statement earlier about the long lines of mexicans at the ER's. america does not let people rot on the street (unless they want to), there is welfare, food stamps, SSI (which can be for life) and a whole slew of churches and non profits who want to help other people out, and dont force people to give them money with threat of jail like a govt does. it cant be that bad economically if millions of people are risking death and exploitation just to get over the border to do our yardwork or clean our restarant tables. not nearly as bad as the press seems to think it is anyways.

[Carmel]

I agree that our goverment funded services are pretty alright.  But as some others have mentioned that its not so much their structure as it is their accessibility....to the middle class especially.  

The poor are gonna get coverage, the rich can buy their own coverage....but its the middle class shmoe who gets screwed.  They make too much to qualify for Medicaid or welfare.....and yeah, they'll get treated if they walk through the door just like the next guy.....but then they get plastered with a 5000 medical bill that  they might be able to pay out, but at the expense of their credit (which is responsible for them being able to maintain their lifestyle via car payments, mortage etc) and all while trying to work, raise children and the like.  The middle class guy doesnt have the luxury of throwing their hands up and saying uncle like the poor guy with nothing to lose or the rich guy who can buy his way out.  Trying to get proper medical care or any emergent care could very well take everything from him.  

Employer provided benefits are dwindling as well....it used to be that when you got benefits from your job, it was an actual BENEFIT....these days you can go into the hole even paying the 20% coverage you are most likely to be responsible for.  Not to mention if you are a married male, your spouse has to work just to cover that little dog-ear thats eaten out of your check every month to cover taxes, insurance and, oh yeah...Medicaid/Medicare that you dont qualify for.  Then you fall into the trap of earning enough for daycare because no one can stay home and raise children.  

This segement is the most strained and broken in my opinion.

[Oz girl]

Sorry i did not know it was all 50 states that had to do this. This does howeverhighlight my point that there is need for regulation. Without this you dont think every for profit hospital would actually see the poor patient for free do you lunatic fringe?
And even with this being the case Do you think ER depts should be seeing people with colds and flu? Is this the best way to operate a medical system? These people should have access to a GP and it should be bulk billed. This way the triage nurse has a much easier job.

You also seem to think my initial argument was to just to criticise the US for being to liberal. it was not entirely. It was more to disagree with the claim that liberalism is the only moral philosophy. It is good that there is some sort of social safety net like food stamps. i dont think that these go far enough to stem the actual causes of poverty. They merely feed people, which i grant is better than letting someone starve.

What I was arguing was that accessable education, which helps prevent real long term intergenerational poverty, and comprehensive universal free health coverage as well as the provision of extensive social services is a duty of civilised govt. It is why we pay taxes. This has nothing to do with interfering with individual liberties.

One area where we are in agreeance is that the US seems to have a very philanthropic outlook. I wish there was more of this here.

I agree with everything Carmel said

[Deborah]

If you are referring to EMTALA, it?s my understanding that hospitals are only required to treat Emergency situations and must only keep an indigent person until they are stabilized, at which time they can be/are transferred to a county hospital.
http://www.emtala.com/history.htm

The US welfare system is not philanthropic or paternalistic. There are no comparisons to a Social Medical system. One must be absolutely destitute in order to receive any kind of aid at all. It is not true that poor and working class people?s medical needs will be taken care of.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibil ... #TopOfPage
Medicaid is a joint Federal and State program that helps with medical costs for some people with low incomes and limited resources. Medicaid programs vary from state to state.

Here?s the run down on services in Texas:
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Programs/how_to.html

Computation of Sample Food Stamp Household
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/programs/te ... stamp.html
Net income for family of 4- $677 qualifies for a maximum of $302 of food stamps per month, provided they don?t have liquid assets that exceed $5000. And you'll play hell getting the max.

Single person, no kids. Must work 20 hrs/week. Max net income $798.  Max food stamps $152. Would very likely be less, and the pittance of help they may receive is almost not worth the unbelievable bs one has to endure when dealing with this bureaucracy.

MediCARE is for the retired.
MediCAID is for indigent, disabled, and certain other destitute populations.

Who qualifies for Medicaid?
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/medicaid/cs ... d_FAQ.html

Poverty Guideline for 1 person-  $9,800 per year
Poverty Guideline for 4 persons- $20,000 per year
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/research/ds ... evels.html

Look at those numbers closely. Do you notice how utterly preposterous they are? There is no where in Hell, or the US, that a family of 4 can live on $1,600 a month.
It?s not recommended that you pay over ¼ of your income to rent. Know anywhere a family of 4 can live for $400 a month?  :rofl:  It doesn?t exist. Even if they lucked out, the remaining $1,200 would not cover other basic necessities such as utilities, food, transportation to their $5.25/hr slave jobs, clothes, medical.

Anything under $50,000 should be considered ?Low Income? for a family of 4.

According to the last Census,
http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf
there were 61,226,734 households (not individuals, but households) earning under $50K. Roughly 60% of the population. All of the poor, working class, and some who still consider themselves middle class.

As for ?Shrubs? new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. Dear lord. Just a clever slight of hand to change the rules so that those on Medicare who don?t have exorbitant drug bills pay for those who do. Here?s a story about that. It?s not a hypothetical scenario. This is an elder woman who I help with her dealings with the government. On top of being laborious to deal with it?s virtually impossible for most elders to understand and navigate the convoluted system.
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... vid#137615

What is all the terror of a Social Medical System?
We all pay in to Medicaid/Medicare now. And that only insures that we?ll have medical coverage when we retire or become indigent or disabled. Many qualifiers exempt people. When you retire, it?s not like the government (Medicare) is going to pay all your medical expenses. You must purchase one of their insurance plans and then another through a private company- Part B which covers costs above Medicare limits- which are incredibly low. Both currently cost an average of $250/mo. Now, that is a decent Plan B with no deductibles, but, $250 is a little more than ¼ of the average Social Security benefit.

So, what could so terribly wrong about paying a bit more into a social pool and having all medical expenses covered? Call it something else? The ?Healthcare for Everyone Insurance Plan". I can?t fathom how it could be any worse than the HMO bullshit most people deal with. Every year insurance companies look for ways to decrease benefits while raising premiums. You have to see new and inexperienced doctors who will sell their services cheaper, etc. etc. etc. It's pathetic that this nation hasn't figured this out. And they're not going to 'figure it out' because the primary concern is not for "we the people" but for corporate welfare.

[try another castle]

Exactly. The amount of money you have to be earning in order to qualify for medicaid is totally unrealistic, and hasn't been updated in five decades, according to my caseworker.

However, medicare is not simply for the elderly. Many, such as myself, who are on medicaid are REQUIRED to get on medicare when it is offered to you. As a result, the dual covered are the ones who benefited the most from the medicare drug plan, because we were guaranteed coverage with no premium or deductible, and a co-pay of no more than $5. This was because we were required to go over to the medicare drug plan, as medicaid was going to stop paying for our drugs. As of now, there is some emergency drug coverage that medicaid will do, such as benzodiazapines, since medicare won't cover that. But it is supposed to stop in 2007. I'm not sure what will happen after that.

I am fortunate in that I was savvy enough with red tape to navigate through the process and got a plan that was good. (Never go with the default provider. They are terrible.) But most seniors thought that their only recourse was to try to figure out that ridiculous book that came in the mail. In addition, most of them did not have dual coverage, so I'm pretty sure they were going to have to pay more for medication. In addition, they could only change their plan once a year, whereas the dual covered could change their plan pretty much whenever.

I guess my point is that I am agreeing with carmel, the middle class get shafted.