Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Government Solved the HC Crisis

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:22:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
<<<C/p from http://libertariannation.org... >>>
<<<My bolding of areas of specific interest, but the whole article is interesting too>>>

Today, we are constantly being told, the United States faces a health care crisis. Medical costs are too high, and health insurance is out of reach of the poor. The cause of this crisis is never made very clear, but the cure is obvious to nearly everybody: government must step in to solve the problem.

Eighty years ago, Americans were also told that their nation was facing a health care crisis. Then, however, the complaint was that medical costs were too low, and that health insurance was too accessible. But in that era, too, government stepped forward to solve the problem. And boy, did it solve it!

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.

Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."

"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care. By contrast, the average cost of medical service on the regular market was between one and two dollars per visit. Yet licensed physicians, particularly those who did not come from "big name" medical schools, competed vigorously for lodge contracts, perhaps because of the security they offered; and this competition continued to keep costs low.

The response of the medical establishment, both in America and in Britain, was one of outrage; the institution of lodge practice was denounced in harsh language and apocalyptic tones. Such low fees, many doctors charged, were bankrupting the medical profession. Moreover, many saw it as a blow to the dignity of the profession that trained physicians should be eagerly bidding for the chance to serve as the hirelings of lower-class tradesmen. It was particularly detestable that such uneducated and socially inferior people should be permitted to set fees for the physicians' services, or to sit in judgment on professionals to determine whether their services had been satisfactory. The government, they demanded, must do something.

And so it did. In Britain, the state put an end to the "evil" of lodge practice by bringing health care under political control. Physicians' fees would now be determined by panels of trained professionals (i.e., the physicians themselves) rather than by ignorant patients. State-financed medical care edged out lodge practice; those who were being forced to pay taxes for "free" health care whether they wanted it or not had little incentive to pay extra for health care through the fraternal societies, rather than using the government care they had already paid for.

In America, it took longer for the nation's health care system to be socialized, so the medical establishment had to achieve its ends more indirectly; but the essential result was the same. Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.

Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices - a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.

The final death blow to lodge practice was struck by the fraternal societies themselves. The National Fraternal Congress - attempting, like the AMA, to reap the benefits of cartelization - lobbied for laws decreeing a legal minimum on the rates fraternal societies could charge. Unfortunately for the lobbyists, the lobbying effort was successful; the unintended consequence was that the minimum rates laws made the services of fraternal societies no longer competitive. Thus the National Fraternal Congress' lobbying efforts, rather than creating a formidable mutual-aid cartel, simply destroyed the fraternal societies' market niche - and with it the opportunity for low-cost health care for the working poor.

Why do we have a crisis in health care costs today? Because government "solved" the last one.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:47:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
"
Question, how did they do so, what institutional abuse safeguards were in place? Or was it just a matter of ostracism?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:51:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 4:47:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
"
Question, how did they do so, what institutional abuse safeguards were in place? Or was it just a matter of ostracism?

Dunno, but ostracism would more than likely be one of the measures they employed. People are creative with solutions to problems when there aren't any top-down restrictions. I can't say for sure, but if there were preventions on the institutional end, they probably would've written that instead - it's English 101, you make every sentence as effective as possible.

Not that you'd believe anything less than violence will solve such problems, but hey, it worked out. If you deny the evidence, there's not much I can say.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:57:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 4:51:17 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/12/2009 4:47:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
"
Question, how did they do so, what institutional abuse safeguards were in place? Or was it just a matter of ostracism?

Dunno, but ostracism would more than likely be one of the measures they employed. People are creative with solutions to problems when there aren't any top-down restrictions. I can't say for sure, but if there were preventions on the institutional end, they probably would've written that instead - it's English 101, you make every sentence as effective as possible.

Not that you'd believe anything less than violence will solve such problems
Violence? It's a private organization. Booting someone out if they violate some objective provision in the contract that prevents abuse is quite sufficient. Ostracism MIGHT work, depending on what sort and amount of people you're dealing with, but it's unreliable.

Keep in mind that if the provision isn't objective, then it might have "false positives," booting people out of the lodge that they don't like (which won't show up in the numbers if it's in small amounts.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:19:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 4:57:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/12/2009 4:51:17 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/12/2009 4:47:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.
"
Question, how did they do so, what institutional abuse safeguards were in place? Or was it just a matter of ostracism?

Dunno, but ostracism would more than likely be one of the measures they employed. People are creative with solutions to problems when there aren't any top-down restrictions. I can't say for sure, but if there were preventions on the institutional end, they probably would've written that instead - it's English 101, you make every sentence as effective as possible.

Not that you'd believe anything less than violence will solve such problems
Violence? It's a private organization. Booting someone out if they violate some objective provision in the contract that prevents abuse is quite sufficient.
There we go, there's a solution. Contracts.

Ostracism MIGHT work, depending on what sort and amount of people you're dealing with, but it's unreliable.
You don't have to deal with people who are resistant to ostracism - simply switch lodge organizations.

Keep in mind that if the provision isn't objective, then it might have "false positives," booting people out of the lodge that they don't like (which won't show up in the numbers if it's in small amounts.)
Never argued against contracts, sorry if I wasn't clear about that :P the point I'm trying to make with this articles is that lodges are preferable to not only socialized healthcare, but also this "psuedo" monopoly the AMA holds. I don't know how a lodge society would work today, but I'm sure it'd be much more efficient, with better information tech now and all that.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:24:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

Keep in mind that if the provision isn't objective, then it might have "false positives," booting people out of the lodge that they don't like (which won't show up in the numbers if it's in small amounts.)
Never argued against contracts, sorry if I wasn't clear about that :P the point I'm trying to make with this articles is that lodges are preferable to not only socialized healthcare, but also this "psuedo" monopoly the AMA holds.
On that point we agree. I'm just bringing up the mild issues before the bad guys do :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 11:21:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:24:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

On that point we agree. I'm just bringing up the mild issues before the bad guys do :).

lol @ the bad guys.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 12:08:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ahhhhh, no discussion is going on. I am in major disappointments.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 3:36:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?

Whoever said anything about putting profit over provision? It's not like they're mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to do both, as shown in my original post at the beginning of this thread. On top of that, provision can only be maintained at a high level of efficiency and quality when there is competition and a market, or as you like to call it, "profit" motivation and incentives. Once a monopoly is in place, there can be no maintenance of efficiency and quality, and hence, no provisions.

Economics 101, liberal.

Unless of course, you're willing to argue that as long as a person that has the title of "doctor" owns a building called an "office" and calls the people who comes into his "office" "patients" and as long as those things are in place then provision is being provided. It's really no matter, they're just words after all.

It's perfectly fine if you want to argue that the elementary school nearby my house has sufficiently put in safety measures against fires by having a red backpack in each classroom, each filled to the brink with food, water, and medical items - that all expired at least ten years ago.

If you want to argue that having those red backpacks sufficiently fulfills your caring for the children's health and safety, be my fùcking guest.

Go for it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 3:45:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?

You guys have the health care crisis.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 3:59:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 3:36:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?

Whoever said anything about putting profit over provision? It's not like they're mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to do both, as shown in my original post at the beginning of this thread. On top of that, provision can only be maintained at a high level of efficiency and quality when there is competition and a market, or as you like to call it, "profit" motivation and incentives. Once a monopoly is in place, there can be no maintenance of efficiency and quality, and hence, no provisions.

Economics 101, liberal.

Unless of course, you're willing to argue that as long as a person that has the title of "doctor" owns a building called an "office" and calls the people who comes into his "office" "patients" and as long as those things are in place then provision is being provided. It's really no matter, they're just words after all.

It's perfectly fine if you want to argue that the elementary school nearby my house has sufficiently put in safety measures against fires by having a red backpack in each classroom, each filled to the brink with food, water, and medical items - that all expired at least ten years ago.

If you want to argue that having those red backpacks sufficiently fulfills your caring for the children's health and safety, be my fùcking guest.

Go for it.

lol thanks for the aggresive tone.
I'm not trying to argue any of the things you seem to think I am, I haven't even argued anything.

I am very happy to pay taxes towards a service that provides for me, my family and anyone else in my country that needs it.

My experience of the service has always been great (particularly at Birmingham Children's Hospital) and I know it would still be there for me and my daughter if I was somehow unable to work.

Anyone not satisfied with the service is of course free to pay for private healthcare.

Compassion 101, capitalist.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 4:00:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 3:45:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?

You guys have the health care crisis.

I'm not sure what you mean, can you please explain?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 4:24:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
lol you didn't read anything I said, did you?

I took compassion 101. Probably because it's human nature to be social and empathetic. You didn't take economics 101 though. Which is why you fail and I don't. You think you can send your god The Government in and it'll solve everything. I look at what's real and see that every time the government steps into something, it becomes sh!tty.

At 9/13/2009 3:59:37 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 3:36:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 3:11:55 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 1:19:02 PM, mongoose wrote:
The liberals have no way to defend themselves, so they gave up.

lol @ liberals = bad guys.

There's no health care crisis in my country I'm glad to say. Why should I lecture people about it if I know they put profit over provision?

Whoever said anything about putting profit over provision? It's not like they're mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to do both, as shown in my original post at the beginning of this thread. On top of that, provision can only be maintained at a high level of efficiency and quality when there is competition and a market, or as you like to call it, "profit" motivation and incentives. Once a monopoly is in place, there can be no maintenance of efficiency and quality, and hence, no provisions.

Economics 101, liberal.

Unless of course, you're willing to argue that as long as a person that has the title of "doctor" owns a building called an "office" and calls the people who comes into his "office" "patients" and as long as those things are in place then provision is being provided. It's really no matter, they're just words after all.

It's perfectly fine if you want to argue that the elementary school nearby my house has sufficiently put in safety measures against fires by having a red backpack in each classroom, each filled to the brink with food, water, and medical items - that all expired at least ten years ago.

If you want to argue that having those red backpacks sufficiently fulfills your caring for the children's health and safety, be my fùcking guest.

Go for it.

lol thanks for the aggresive tone.
Yeah, because I totally started the accusations.
I'm not trying to argue any of the things you seem to think I am, I haven't even argued anything.
You have argued that I care only about profits and not about provision. So don't BS me.

I am very happy to pay taxes towards a service that provides for me, my family and anyone else in my country that needs it.
Good for you. Don't make everyone else pay it if they don't agree.

My experience of the service has always been great (particularly at Birmingham Children's Hospital) and I know it would still be there for me and my daughter if I was somehow unable to work.
And why is there such high unemployment again? Oh yeah, anti-discriminatory pay laws and minimum wage. Which were made and enforced by, you guessed it, your good old friend the government.

Anyone not satisfied with the service is of course free to pay for private healthcare.
I totally have an infinite amount of money to both afford public and private healthcare. And people are totally going to want to provide private healthcare when there's an alternative that everyone else has already [been forced] to pay for.

Compassion 101, capitalist.
Real Life 101, boy.

The fact of the matter is, there are people out there who have not taking compassion 101, and they like to use violence and theft and other dirty means to achieve their ends. Well, what better way to achieve those ends than by getting into the government? Oh, did a politician "lose" millions of dollars? That's okay, he can have a pension and live the rest of his life with one yacht for every one of his digits. No, the government doesn't solve anything.

I believe that you care about the poor, and the unemployed, and other people who can't afford private healthcare. I care about them too. But caring doesn't get anyone anywhere, the means of delivery must be effective in order to show that the intent is valuable. A mother can believe that she's helping her son learn "morals" by slapping his face every time he does something she disapproves of, but what happens? The vast majority of the time, that kid will grow up to abuse his wife. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother cares about her son's welfare, because every mother cares about their childrens' welfare.

What matters is how those truly good intentions are achieved.

And the deus ex machina, the god we call "the state" never solves anything.

It is just a drug. It takes a while for people to get addicted, it causes them to chase the high and continue using it for the desired effect even when the problem just keeps getting worse, and when they get off the drug, there are withdrawal symptoms. The state matches each and every one of those things.

UHC does not provide people with anything near a high quality healthcare, and it's expensive.

A free market system provides everyone that wants it with quality healthcare, at cheap and very affordable prices for everyone.

Profit and Provision are not mutually exclusive. Profit drives up provisions.

Economics 101, Liberal. If the market demands something, a solution will be found.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 4:41:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 4:35:37 PM, JBlake wrote:
Your god, the Market, will not solve everything satisfactorily either.

Of course not. Doctor's wages would be dropped, so would pharmacists, and CEOs, and politicians, and pretty much anyone's wages which are artificially inflated by the existent of the state. They will suffer. For people who are looking for lots and lots of money without necessarily doing the crime themselves, they will definitely be hurt by the market.

But you and feverish don't mind that..... or do you?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 5:23:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 4:24:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
lol you didn't read anything I said, did you?

Yes although I admit to not understanding it all.

you fail and I don't.

Congratulations.

lol thanks for the aggresive tone.
Yeah, because I totally started the accusations.

I was actually responding to an accusation from Mongoose that I had 'given up'
though I don't know what on.

I'm not trying to argue any of the things you seem to think I am, I haven't even argued anything.
You have argued that I care only about profits and not about provision. So don't BS me.

I didn't address you personally and you are also misrepresenting what I said.

Putting profits over provision does not suggest they are mutually exclusive, it implies that one is given higher priority. Scoop up your own BS first.


I am very happy to pay taxes towards a service that provides for me, my family and anyone else in my country that needs it.
Good for you. Don't make everyone else pay it if they don't agree.

I'm not making anyone. There is virtually universal agreement about this issue in the UK and people who don't approve of the tax system are of course free to leave.

My experience of the service has always been great (particularly at Birmingham Children's Hospital) and I know it would still be there for me and my daughter if I was somehow unable to work.

And why is there such high unemployment again? Oh yeah, anti-discriminatory pay laws and minimum wage. Which were made and enforced by, you guessed it, your good old friend the government.

There was higher unemployment under the Tories when there was no minimum wage. Current high levels are mostly due to global recession (and we all know who's fault that is).

I totally have an infinite amount of money to both afford public and private healthcare. And people are totally going to want to provide private healthcare when there's an alternative that everyone else has already [been forced] to pay for.

Plenty of people do, the gap between the rich and the poor is big enough for the rich to easily afford to pay twice.

And where is the compassion in your system for those with less money who can't afford to pay for the most basic care?

Real Life 101, boy.

You are a child, I am a grown man. Calling me 'boy' makes you appear foolish.

The fact of the matter is, there are people out there who have not taking compassion 101, and they like to use violence and theft and other dirty means to achieve their ends. Well, what better way to achieve those ends than by getting into the government? Oh, did a politician "lose" millions of dollars? That's okay, he can have a pension and live the rest of his life with one yacht for every one of his digits. No, the government doesn't solve anything.

I agree that the current system is flawed but I think that unless (or even if) you are proposing revolution, diismantling it completely would cause more problems than it would solve.

I believe that you care about the poor, and the unemployed, and other people who can't afford private healthcare. I care about them too. But caring doesn't get anyone anywhere, the means of delivery must be effective in order to show that the intent is valuable. A mother can believe that she's helping her son learn "morals" by slapping his face every time he does something she disapproves of, but what happens? The vast majority of the time, that kid will grow up to abuse his wife. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother cares about her son's welfare, because every mother cares about their childrens' welfare.

What matters is how those truly good intentions are achieved.

And the deus ex machina, the god we call "the state" never solves anything.

I think Britain's National Health Service is one (perhaps rare) example of government solving a problem and benefiting people.

It is just a drug. It takes a while for people to get addicted, it causes them to chase the high and continue using it for the desired effect even when the problem just keeps getting worse, and when they get off the drug, there are withdrawal symptoms. The state matches each and every one of those things.

I actually have some respect for your anarchic opinions, just not your capitalist ones. What do you think of Chomsky?

UHC does not provide people with anything near a high quality healthcare, and it's expensive.

It does in Birmingham, England, I certainly don't feel I'm missing out.

A free market system provides everyone that wants it with quality healthcare, at cheap and very affordable prices for everyone.

I think you mean everyone who can afford it. I've never heard quality US healthcare described as cheap.

Profit and Provision are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. It is indeed possible to provide and make profit.

Profit drives up provisions.

Only for those who can afford to pay for them.

Economics 101, Liberal. If the market demands something, a solution will be found.

Unless the voters demand the obvious solution first.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 5:23:46 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 4:24:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I'm not trying to argue any of the things you seem to think I am, I haven't even argued anything.
You have argued that I care only about profits and not about provision. So don't BS me.

I didn't address you personally and you are also misrepresenting what I said.
I don't see what is particularly important about you not addressing me. Forum posts work this way. I did not "misrepresent" what you said, I simply gave my point of view on your not very clarified statements. You do give a clarification in this post, which I will respond to.

Putting profits over provision does not suggest they are mutually exclusive, it implies that one is given higher priority. Scoop up your own BS first.
Oh, whoops.

I am very happy to pay taxes towards a service that provides for me, my family and anyone else in my country that needs it.
Good for you. Don't make everyone else pay it if they don't agree.

I'm not making anyone. There is virtually universal agreement about this issue in the UK and people who don't approve of the tax system are of course free to leave.
To..... what, another tax system?

My experience of the service has always been great (particularly at Birmingham Children's Hospital) and I know it would still be there for me and my daughter if I was somehow unable to work.

And why is there such high unemployment again? Oh yeah, anti-discriminatory pay laws and minimum wage. Which were made and enforced by, you guessed it, your good old friend the government.

There was higher unemployment under the Tories when there was no minimum wage. Current high levels are mostly due to global recession (and we all know who's fault that is).
Based on their era (http://en.wikipedia.org...(political_faction)), the Tories probably used mercantalism, not capitalism. When I said minimum wage, I was referring to minimum wages used in state capitalism. I did not say that minimum wage and state capitalism was the worst possible economic system, only that it is worse than free market capitalism.

Current high levels are mostly due to global recession, and yes, we know whose fault it is: capitalists using the state semi-fascist system. Sure, capitalists are the ones that "caused" the problem. But the situation would've never happened if it was a free market.

It's kind of like how AIDS victims never die of AIDS, but of, say, pneumonia. Pneumonia is the capitalists. AIDS is the state.

I totally have an infinite amount of money to both afford public and private healthcare. And people are totally going to want to provide private healthcare when there's an alternative that everyone else has already [been forced] to pay for.

Plenty of people do, the gap between the rich and the poor is big enough for the rich to easily afford to pay twice.
And after they pay for that, they'll still have enough money for everything else too? Money is limited, and what is spent on one thing cannot be spent on another thing. Perhaps families are able to afford both private and public healthcare, but there are industries just being destroyed by that usage of money, and we can't see the effects of making people who want to pay only for private healthcare pay for both, because the results are never seen.

And where is the compassion in your system for those with less money who can't afford to pay for the most basic care?

Real Life 101, boy.

You are a child, I am a grown man. Calling me 'boy' makes you appear foolish.
I'll worry about my appearance, you worry about yours.

The fact of the matter is, there are people out there who have not taking compassion 101, and they like to use violence and theft and other dirty means to achieve their ends. Well, what better way to achieve those ends than by getting into the government? Oh, did a politician "lose" millions of dollars? That's okay, he can have a pension and live the rest of his life with one yacht for every one of his digits. No, the government doesn't solve anything.

I agree that the current system is flawed but I think that unless (or even if) you are proposing revolution, diismantling it completely would cause more problems than it would solve.
Only for a while. The state is a drug, there's withdrawal symptoms.

I believe that you care about the poor, and the unemployed, and other people who can't afford private healthcare. I care about them too. But caring doesn't get anyone anywhere, the means of delivery must be effective in order to show that the intent is valuable. A mother can believe that she's helping her son learn "morals" by slapping his face every time he does something she disapproves of, but what happens? The vast majority of the time, that kid will grow up to abuse his wife. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother cares about her son's welfare, because every mother cares about their childrens' welfare.

What matters is how those truly good intentions are achieved.

And the deus ex machina, the god we call "the state" never solves anything.

I think Britain's National Health Service is one (perhaps rare) example of government solving a problem and benefiting people.
And why exactly is that?

It is just a drug. It takes a while for people to get addicted, it causes them to chase the high and continue using it for the desired effect even when the problem just keeps getting worse, and when they get off the drug, there are withdrawal symptoms. The state matches each and every one of those things.

I actually have some respect for your anarchic opinions, just not your capitalist ones. What do you think of Chomsky?
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism. I have not read Chomsky, but I want to. Unfortunately, it is senior year in high school for me.

UHC does not provide people with anything near a high quality healthcare, and it's expensive.

It does in Birmingham, England, I certainly don't feel I'm missing out.
Okay, so the NHC meets your needs. How do you know it's high quality, though? What exactly are you comparing the NHC to?

A free market system provides everyone that wants it with quality healthcare, at cheap and very affordable prices for everyone.

I think you mean everyone who can afford it. I've never heard quality US healthcare described as cheap.
US healthcare =/= free market system. I can elaborate if you want in a later post, cause I'm running out of characters here.

Profit drives up provisions.

Only for those who can afford to pay for them.
Imagine a society with at least a free market in healthcare. There's a bunch of people that can't afford other firms' healthcare. I'm a greedy capitalist, what do I do? Start a low-cost healthcare service. Perhaps not as extensive as the more pricey ones, but a pretty good one. When there's a market like that and a lot of demand, the first successful person will make a fortune. Of course, I wouldn't be the only one, everyone else would see it too. They'd start competing with me - by dropping prices on me. And we continue dropping until there's some fair equilibrium that we wouldn't go below due to labor, equipment, rent, etc. Voila. Low cost healthcare.

Economics 101, Liberal. If the market demands something, a solution will be found.

Unless the voters demand the obvious solution first.
Yes, I agree, though my intent was not to argue from the current system, but to argue under a free market system. How to get from here to there is a completely different matter.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 6:17:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism.

It's otherwise known as "Denying the law of non-contradiction," Rezz. Chomsky advocated, among other things, "democratic control of communities and workplaces." Needless to say, democracy is a mechanism of governing things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 6:47:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 6:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism.

It's otherwise known as "Denying the law of non-contradiction," Rezz. Chomsky advocated, among other things, "democratic control of communities and workplaces." Needless to say, democracy is a mechanism of governing things.

.....so anarchism without capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction,
or anarchism with capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction???

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying Chomsky is wrong, or that I am wrong?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 7:38:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 6:47:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 6:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism.

It's otherwise known as "Denying the law of non-contradiction," Rezz. Chomsky advocated, among other things, "democratic control of communities and workplaces." Needless to say, democracy is a mechanism of governing things.

.....so anarchism without capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction,
or anarchism with capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction???

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying Chomsky is wrong, or that I am wrong?
Chomsky. I was answering your question. About Chomsky's anarchism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 7:44:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 7:38:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2009 6:47:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 6:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism.

It's otherwise known as "Denying the law of non-contradiction," Rezz. Chomsky advocated, among other things, "democratic control of communities and workplaces." Needless to say, democracy is a mechanism of governing things.

.....so anarchism without capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction,
or anarchism with capitalism = denying law of noncontradiction???

I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying Chomsky is wrong, or that I am wrong?
Chomsky. I was answering your question. About Chomsky's anarchism.
Oh, okay. I gots it now.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:29:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 5:54:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 5:23:46 PM, feverish wrote:

I'm not making anyone. There is virtually universal agreement about this issue in the UK and people who don't approve of the tax system are of course free to leave.
To..... what, another tax system?

I guess if the market demanded it, there would be some kind of libertarian haven on an island somewhere. Except we all benefit from the protection of a state and we shouldn't necessarily resent contributing to it. Yes we can choose another (in this case one withthout UHC).

And where is the compassion in your system for those with less money who can't afford to pay for the most basic care?

I believe that you care about the poor, and the unemployed, and other people who can't afford private healthcare. I care about them too. But caring doesn't get anyone anywhere, the means of delivery must be effective in order to show that the intent is valuable. A mother can believe that she's helping her son learn "morals" by slapping his face every time he does something she disapproves of, but what happens? The vast majority of the time, that kid will grow up to abuse his wife. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother cares about her son's welfare, because every mother cares about their childrens' welfare.

It's good to know you care.
What matters is how those truly good intentions are achieved.

And the deus ex machina, the god we call "the state" never solves anything.

I think Britain's National Health Service is one (perhaps rare) example of government solving a problem and benefiting people.
And why exactly is that?

Because it works. You're right that I'm no economist but it's cheaper than America too.

http://www.usa-vs-uk.com...
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org...

I actually have some respect for your anarchic opinions, just not your capitalist ones. What do you think of Chomsky?
I have no idea how anarchism can work without capitalism. I have not read Chomsky, but I want to. Unfortunately, it is senior year in high school for me.

I encourage you to take the time and read for yourself rather than taking mine or R-R's word for anything.

UHC does not provide people with anything near a high quality healthcare, and it's expensive.

It does in Birmingham, England, I certainly don't feel I'm missing out.
Okay, so the NHC meets your needs. How do you know it's high quality, though? What exactly are you comparing the NHC to?

You're right I have little to compare it too from personal experience but I do have reason to believe it is cheaper and performs better on basic things like infant mortality rates and deaths from injuies than the US system and most others worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://really.zonky.org...

A free market system provides everyone that wants it with quality healthcare, at cheap and very affordable prices for everyone.

A well run UHC system like the NHS provides everyone that NEEDS it with quality healthcare that is completely free at the point of delivery.

US healthcare =/= free market system. I can elaborate if you want in a later post, cause I'm running out of characters here.

OK, some misunderstanding on my part. Please forgive me for comparing the NHS with the current US system rather than your proposed alterative, for which there is obviously no factual data

Profit drives up provisions.

Only for those who can afford to pay for them.
Imagine a society with at least a free market in healthcare. There's a bunch of people that can't afford other firms' healthcare. I'm a greedy capitalist, what do I do? Start a low-cost healthcare service. Perhaps not as extensive as the more pricey ones, but a pretty good one. When there's a market like that and a lot of demand, the first successful person will make a fortune. Of course, I wouldn't be the only one, everyone else would see it too. They'd start competing with me - by dropping prices on me. And we continue dropping until there's some fair equilibrium that we wouldn't go below due to labor, equipment, rent, etc. Voila. Low cost healthcare.

At what cost to life in the meantime?

Economics 101, Liberal. If the market demands something, a solution will be found.

Unless the voters demand the obvious solution first.
Yes, I agree, though my intent was not to argue from the current system, but to argue under a free market system. How to get from here to there is a completely different matter.

So would you sign up for a revolution or do you propose reform from within?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 7:10:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let's turn the clock back shall we?

Not so very long a ago, there was no state-funded education system and children whose parents couldn't afford to educate them privately had to go out to work at a a very young age - often in appalling conditions and for very low pay. Subsequently, when they grew up and had children themselves, they were unable to pay for private education and so a viscous circle of deprivation ensued and an under-class was created.

There were a limited number of spaces available to certain gifted children from deprived backgrounds courtesy of charitable institutions, of course, but the majority of poor kids fell by the wayside.

Both health and education are fundamentally important in a civilised society and their provision cannot be left to charitable organisations.

As a citizen of your country you have rights and responsibilities. You are expected to uphold the law, work for a living and pay your taxes. In return, you have the right to live in a secure environment and have access to free healthcare and education.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:07:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 5:29:14 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/13/2009 5:54:54 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 5:23:46 PM, feverish wrote:

I'm not making anyone. There is virtually universal agreement about this issue in the UK and people who don't approve of the tax system are of course free to leave.
To..... what, another tax system?

I guess if the market demanded it, there would be some kind of libertarian haven on an island somewhere. Except we all benefit from the protection of a state and we shouldn't necessarily resent contributing to it. Yes we can choose another (in this case one withthout UHC).
Markets do not function properly when a monopoly is in place - and the one monopoly that allows for the existence of all other monopolies is the monopoly on violence, the state. If the market DID work properly under the state, it wouldn't be such a point of contention between the Republicans and the Democrats, the Austrians wouldn't be fighting the Keynesians all the time, and I wouldn't be an anarchist.

What matters is how those truly good intentions are achieved.

And the deus ex machina, the god we call "the state" never solves anything.

I think Britain's National Health Service is one (perhaps rare) example of government solving a problem and benefiting people.
And why exactly is that?

Because it works. You're right that I'm no economist but it's cheaper than America too.

http://www.usa-vs-uk.com...
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org...
I was more looking for what the criteria are for determining whether or not a government program is solving a problem and is benefiting people. And I'm assuming by people you mean the general population. Every single government program benefits some politician somewhere. I'm also looking for why exactly you say it's a rare example - what exactly does the NHS do that makes it different from other UK programs, or as you suggest, any program by any government ever?

UHC does not provide people with anything near a high quality healthcare, and it's expensive.

It does in Birmingham, England, I certainly don't feel I'm missing out.
Okay, so the NHC meets your needs. How do you know it's high quality, though? What exactly are you comparing the NHC to?

You're right I have little to compare it too from personal experience but I do have reason to believe it is cheaper and performs better on basic things like infant mortality rates and deaths from injuies than the US system and most others worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://really.zonky.org...
"An 18-week wait is the longest allowed. Most NHS patients do not wait anything like that long. The average wait for treatment for patients admitted to hospital is now 8.6 weeks. Patients who did not need to be admitted waited an average of 4.6 weeks as of January 2009."

That is still ridiculously long.

A free market system provides everyone that wants it with quality healthcare, at cheap and very affordable prices for everyone.

A well run UHC system like the NHS provides everyone that NEEDS it with quality healthcare that is completely free at the point of delivery.

US healthcare =/= free market system. I can elaborate if you want in a later post, cause I'm running out of characters here.

OK, some misunderstanding on my part. Please forgive me for comparing the NHS with the current US system rather than your proposed alterative, for which there is obviously no factual data
In theory, I'm supposed to be able to argue that the US system is better than the NHS or other UHCs because it's closer to the free market on the sliding scale between capitalism and socialism, but I simply do not have any arguments. I can't argue cost, because the money spent in the US system is definitely more than in other systems both monetary and relative costs, and I can't argue competition drives down prices, because again clearly the prices are not being driven down, and the US system doesn't really have competition either. US healthcare is some sort of fascist (in terms of means of production) system, with government control and private "ownership". See video.

Profit drives up provisions.

Only for those who can afford to pay for them.
Imagine a society with at least a free market in healthcare. There's a bunch of people that can't afford other firms' healthcare. I'm a greedy capitalist, what do I do? Start a low-cost healthcare service. Perhaps not as extensive as the more pricey ones, but a pretty good one. When there's a market like that and a lot of demand, the first successful person will make a fortune. Of course, I wouldn't be the only one, everyone else would see it too. They'd start competing with me - by dropping prices on me. And we continue dropping until there's some fair equilibrium that we wouldn't go below due to labor, equipment, rent, etc. Voila. Low cost healthcare.

At what cost to life in the meantime?
I don't know what you mean?

Economics 101, Liberal. If the market demands something, a solution will be found.

Unless the voters demand the obvious solution first.
Yes, I agree, though my intent was not to argue from the current system, but to argue under a free market system. How to get from here to there is a completely different matter.

So would you sign up for a revolution or do you propose reform from within?
I'm not sure, I haven't thought or read up enough on that part yet. My entrance into anarchocapitalism was first from the moral standpoint, and I've only recently started learning the economic side of things. I do not yet know which method I support in terms of how to get to a stateless society, but I'm pretty sure I'm not pro-violent-revolution. I'm not such a big fan of "reform from within" (if you mean become a politician or hold campaigns) either, though.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:18:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 7:10:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Let's turn the clock back shall we?

Not so very long a ago, there was no state-funded education system and children whose parents couldn't afford to educate them privately had to go out to work at a a very young age - often in appalling conditions and for very low pay. Subsequently, when they grew up and had children themselves, they were unable to pay for private education and so a viscous circle of deprivation ensued and an under-class was created.
Are we going to talk about labor laws, or are we going to talk about education? Also, I need a timeframe. I can't exactly refute your point if I don't know where you're coming from. If you don't give me one, then effectively you're just spamming the thread.

There were a limited number of spaces available to certain gifted children from deprived backgrounds courtesy of charitable institutions, of course, but the majority of poor kids fell by the wayside.

Both health and education are fundamentally important in a civilised society and their provision cannot be left to charitable organisations.
Please define "civilized society", and explain why the provision of health and education cannot be left to charitable organizations. Also, please define "charitable organizations.

As a citizen of your country you have rights and responsibilities.
"My" "country". Something I never bought or voluntarily joined, and yet it is "mine". Something tells me that my possession or membership of this "country" thing is not legitimate...

You are expected to uphold the law, work for a living and pay your taxes.
Expected by who, and why do I want live up to their expectations? I'd think that even back in your time, they taught you to never use the passive voice.

In return, you have the right to live in a secure environment and have access to free healthcare and education.
<c/p R_R's lawn-mowing example here.>
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:35:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 8:18:25 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/14/2009 7:10:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Let's turn the clock back shall we?

Not so very long a ago, there was no state-funded education system and children whose parents couldn't afford to educate them privately had to go out to work at a a very young age - often in appalling conditions and for very low pay. Subsequently, when they grew up and had children themselves, they were unable to pay for private education and so a viscous circle of deprivation ensued and an under-class was created.
Are we going to talk about labor laws, or are we going to talk about education? Also, I need a timeframe. I can't exactly refute your point if I don't know where you're coming from. If you don't give me one, then effectively you're just spamming the thread.

I deliberately didn't give a time frame because it varies between countries. Here in the UK, prior to the creation of the Welfare State after the Second World War, neither healthcare nor education were provided free of charge to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay.

There were a limited number of spaces available to certain gifted children from deprived backgrounds courtesy of charitable institutions, of course, but the majority of poor kids fell by the wayside.

Both health and education are fundamentally important in a civilised society and their provision cannot be left to charitable organisations.
Please define "civilized society", and explain why the provision of health and education cannot be left to charitable organizations. Also, please define "charitable organizations.

A civilised country is one that protects and nurtures all its citizens and does not neglect or exploit the venerable members of society.

Charities can only enhance, not replace, vital public services such as health and education, because their funding cannot be guaranteed.

As a citizen of your country you have rights and responsibilities.
"My" "country". Something I never bought or voluntarily joined, and yet it is "mine". Something tells me that my possession or membership of this "country" thing is not legitimate...

True, and many Russians defected to the West during the cold war and there are still millions of people worldwide seeking political asylum. If you don't want to live in a country where disadvantaged people are given taxpayers money to help them become healthy and prosperous, you can move abroad or start a revolution.

You are expected to uphold the law, work for a living and pay your taxes.
Expected by who, and why do I want live up to their expectations? I'd think that even back in your time, they taught you to never use the passive voice.

Please refer to the comments I made above.

In return, you have the right to live in a secure environment and have access to free healthcare and education.
<c/p R_R's lawn-mowing example here.>

I will look this up and respond accordingly...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:44:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 8:35:35 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 9/14/2009 8:18:25 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/14/2009 7:10:27 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Let's turn the clock back shall we?

Not so very long a ago, there was no state-funded education system and children whose parents couldn't afford to educate them privately had to go out to work at a a very young age - often in appalling conditions and for very low pay. Subsequently, when they grew up and had children themselves, they were unable to pay for private education and so a viscous circle of deprivation ensued and an under-class was created.
Are we going to talk about labor laws, or are we going to talk about education? Also, I need a timeframe. I can't exactly refute your point if I don't know where you're coming from. If you don't give me one, then effectively you're just spamming the thread.

I deliberately didn't give a time frame because it varies between countries. Here in the UK, prior to the creation of the Welfare State after the Second World War, neither healthcare nor education were provided free of charge to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay.
O....kay.... then I'll give a narrative of my own. Not so long ago, a high school dropout could find a job and support his wife and two or three kids, buy a house and a car with money and time left over for leisure. Nowadays, both parents with college degrees can barely make ends meet, and that's without children. And without a house.

There were a limited number of spaces available to certain gifted children from deprived backgrounds courtesy of charitable institutions, of course, but the majority of poor kids fell by the wayside.

Both health and education are fundamentally important in a civilised society and their provision cannot be left to charitable organisations.
Please define "civilized society", and explain why the provision of health and education cannot be left to charitable organizations. Also, please define "charitable organizations.

A civilised country is one that protects and nurtures all its citizens and does not neglect or exploit the venerable members of society.
Is extracting money at the point of a gun under your definition of exploit?

Charities can only enhance, not replace, vital public services such as health and education, because their funding cannot be guaranteed.
I do not see how "funding cannot be guaranteed" translates into "Charities can only enhance". The funding of airlines aren't guaranteed and the safety and speed of cargo ships aren't guaranteed, but they are vital services. What do you suggest, that the UN control the weather and the seas?

As a citizen of your country you have rights and responsibilities.
"My" "country". Something I never bought or voluntarily joined, and yet it is "mine". Something tells me that my possession or membership of this "country" thing is not legitimate...

True, and many Russians defected to the West during the cold war and there are still millions of people worldwide seeking political asylum. If you don't want to live in a country where disadvantaged people are given taxpayers money to help them become healthy and prosperous, you can move abroad or start a revolution.
Again, c/p R_R's lawn-mowing example.

You are expected to uphold the law, work for a living and pay your taxes.
Expected by who, and why do I want live up to their expectations? I'd think that even back in your time, they taught you to never use the passive voice.

Please refer to the comments I made above.

In return, you have the right to live in a secure environment and have access to free healthcare and education.
<c/p R_R's lawn-mowing example here.>

I will look this up and respond accordingly...

Or we can wait until R_R gets back here and then he'll rewrite it himself :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:56:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh hai.

If I "offered" you a mowed lawn, mowed it without waiting for an answer, and then demanded ten thousand dollars at gunpoint, would you be happy about your ability to drive away from your house?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.