Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal eglamkowski's Journal: All I ask from the national healthcare advocates... 68

Journal by eglamkowski

who are invariably left-wingers, is that they not object to right-wing using government to push right-wing morality down our throats SOLELY BECAUSE they don't think it's acceptable to use the government to push morality down our throats. Other arguments must be used from now on.

Because using the government to shove government-run healthcare down our throats is itself an imposition of morality. You think that oh, well, it's "good" for the nation to have such a thing. Guess what - the republicans believe their morality is also "good" for the nation and ought to be legislated. If the republicans are wrong, you are wrong.

But in demanding national health care, you've just accepted that it IS an acceptable use of government power to legislate morality, so you lose that as an argument when it comes to opposing the right-wing agenda. Find other reasons to oppose it, opposing it because you don't consider it proper for the government to legislate (right-wing) morality is no longer adequate.

I don't like the morality of YOUR agenda, but you are determined to foce it down my throat anyways, so don't bother me ever again with arguments based solely on morality of the right-wing agenda.

That also goes for government-run retirement (social security), government-run education (no child left behind), government mandated gun-control, government spending on stem-cell research, and, really anything that's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as something the government should be doing. All of those unconstitutional things are legislated morality, and the vast bulk of it comes from left wing. So no more left-wing arguemnts about the supposed unacceptabilty of government legislated morality. It turns out you leftoids just LOVE legislated morality - you can't get enough of it! But only if it's YOUR agenda. I hate it, no matter whose agenda it may be, including yours.

Six years of whining about government legislated morality, and then they immediately set about trying to legislate morality themselves! It boggles the mind. It's so Orwellian it's disturbing.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All I ask from the national healthcare advocates... More

All I ask from the national healthcare advocates...

Comments Filter:
  • Or rather, it's about our competiveness in a global economy. Our current system of Employer-based healthcare is a HUGE drag on the profitability of American companies and corporations- a cost that our competitors in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the Americas do not have to share (because their governments provide that for them). This provides them an absolute advantage in trade that wipes out our comparative advantage in productive capability.

    There, a completely business-related case for national healthc
    • You are wrong. All these socialized programs - health care, retirement, education, are SUCH a burden on the governments, and therefore taxpayers, and therefore businesses who pay the wages of the taxpayers, that the only way these countries can sustain their systems is by sucking other countries dry. Why do you think France and Germany were so anxious for Britain to be more tightly integrated into the EU? Because their socialists systems were economically drained, and Britain represented a huge influx of
      • You are wrong. All these socialized programs - health care, retirement, education, are SUCH a burden on the governments, and therefore taxpayers, and therefore businesses who pay the wages of the taxpayers, that the only way these countries can sustain their systems is by sucking other countries dry.

        But they're significantly LESS of a burden than the privatized version- simply because of economies of scale. Back on topic- healthcare in America usually comes with a 25% profit in the private healthcare ind
        • Apparently you failed to grok the point the first time, so let's try it again: the governments in Europe that are offering all these social services are going bankrupt. When a government goes bankrupt, it won't be able to provide ANY services, not even the ones most fundamental to a government's purpose, like national defense, much less health care or retirement. If these governments are going bankrupt for providing the social services they do, clearly the costs MUST be higher than what you're thinking th
          • Apparently you failed to grok the point the first time, so let's try it again: the governments in Europe that are offering all these social services are going bankrupt.

            So is the United States. So what?

            When a government goes bankrupt, it won't be able to provide ANY services, not even the ones most fundamental to a government's purpose, like national defense, much less health care or retirement.

            Nah, they just print more money. Since all money is fiat, this just causes runaway inflation.

            If these gov
            • I'm completely fine with government-legislated morality

              In that case, this blog wasn't actually targetted at you at all, so you're off the hook from my ire :-)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by JesseL ( 107722 )
              So what's the non-moral justification for trying to improve efficiency or reduce waste for people who don't necessarily want you mucking around with their healthcare?
              • Simple- bottom line. Reducing costs by reducing profit and services. Yes, I said services- you have no *RIGHT* to expect somebody else to pay for your boob jobs (or boob jobs for your floozies). By making standard health care single payer, and leaving all of the exotic plasic surgery for the free market, you insure that the working labor pool will have just good enough health to keep working- thus maximizing productivity, which is our ONLY comparative advantage left.

                If you're rich enough to pay cash, th

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by JesseL ( 107722 )
                  And what is your non-moral justification for trying to maintain a comparative (competitive?) advantage?

                  • And what is your non-moral justification for trying to maintain a comparative (competitive?) advantage?

                    Same as the Austrian Economists- PROFIT and CONTROL. A comparative advantage in trade provides our firms with additional business. An absolute advantage in trade on the other side takes business away from our firms.

                    We don't neccessarily need a full competitive advantage (grabbing a significant portion of the market share) but we do need a comparative advantage (where we can make and sell some goods, a
      • "Nationalized services of these sorts are extremely UNcompetitive in the global marketplace over the long term, no matter what the short term appearance of the matter may be."

        This is utter bullshit with regards to healthcare, which is the subject at hand. I have previously pointed you to evidence contradicting your statement above (with respect to healthcare) on numerous occasions. You have not yet, so far as I recall, countered my evidence on this with any of your own.

        Furthermore, you regularly play fast a
        • You haven't provided evidence of anything. You picked a number out of the air and loudly trumpted that that is the way it will be.

          Take a look at social security - it's on it's way to being bankrupt. Nationalized healthcare will run out of money too, requiring ever higher taxes, and thus imposing ever growing drains on the economy.

          You tout Medicare as the model that SHOULD be used, but there is another US government run health care system that is very large and is SO BAD that even those eligible to use it
          • "You haven't provided evidence of anything. You picked a number out of the air and loudly trumpted that that is the way it will be."

            Well [slashdot.org], not [slashdot.org] today. [slashdot.org] Should I provide lots of links to data? [slashdot.org]

            All of those comments are in or linked to from your journal, and they all have my name on 'em. So tell me again what evidence I have failed to provide to you, and what number I picked out of the air?

            Yer busted, dude. :-)

            "Take a look at social security"

            Social Security is a completely different animal. I have nothing to say
        • And besides, my errors are errors on the side of FREEDOM, which is no error at all.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *

          The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

          That is occasionally good advice. Unfortunately, arguing about the relative efficacy of various government programs is itself losing the discussion, is itself regressive. It fails to recognize that government programs should not exist at all except where they must exist, and if they must exist, their relative efficacy is beside the point.

          Social security is, of course, headed to bankruptcy. But it shouldn't even exist. It's a terrible affront to liberty, it's blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutiona

  • As soon as the coyote realizes there's nothing supporting him, he falls.

    Similarly "[...] using the government to shove government-run healthcare down our throats is itself an imposition of morality." is an unsupported assertion upon which your whole post rests. So prove it. Demonstrate that this is a moral imposition before your whole argument falls down the canyon.

    To me, leftist though I may be, basic universal healthcare in the US is a practical project analagous to the interstate highway system. It's a b

    • To me, leftist though I may be, basic universal healthcare in the US is a practical project analagous to the interstate highway system. It's a basic infrastructure that will, the evidence suggests, result in more efficient healthcare delivery thereby removing a drag on the overall economy. Should we ignore this benefit just because it would benefit the poorest people in this country and produce a moral good?

      You are correct so far: yes, the government stealing healthcare and creating a single monopoly prov

      • "[...] vast government monopolies aren't exactly noted for their efficiency."

        When it comes to healthcare, yes they are. That's what I'm saying. Medicaid is far more efficient in delivering dollars to patient care than private payors in the US are. Even after accounting for all the waste and fraud, Medicaid is more efficient. Even compared to not-for-profit private payors. By a lot. And Medicaid delivers healthcare through exactly the same provider systems that private insurance does, so the care is presum

        • When it comes to healthcare, yes they are. That's what I'm saying. Medicaid is far more efficient in delivering dollars to patient care than private payors in the US are. Even after accounting for all the waste and fraud, Medicaid is more efficient.

          Is it really, though? What I've seen strongly indicates it merely shifts costs, Enron-style - making it look cheaper. You say you work in a clinic which handles both: does Medicaid really pay at the same rates, through the same system, for the same things, or

          • It's a pity sql*kitten isn't with us any longer. He had some good JE's on the british health care system. He even deleted all his JEs. Wonder what happened to him.
          • "You say you work in a clinic which handles both: does Medicaid really pay at the same rates, through the same system, for the same things, or does it impose a big discount, which is why it isn't universally accepted?"

            Reimbursements vary with payor. Medicaid is below average, as far as I know. But it also covers a great many people, and it pays promptly. Like in every other market segment, prompt and certain payment for a large sales volume is worth a volume discount to some providers and not to others.

            Unli

            • Reimbursements vary with payor. Medicaid is below average, as far as I know.

              Substantially below average, as I recall: in effect, it cherry-picks the cheapest healthcare providers going, shifting the costs on to others - which artificially reduces the apparent 'cost', as well as making coverage more expensive for other people. You mentioned earlier about the centres accepting Medicaid mostly being 'public': are they entirely funded from Medicaid, or do they get any tax breaks, other public funding, donatio

              • Go Cyberdyne! I'll have to make some notes for myself for future reference :-)
              • "You mentioned earlier about the centres accepting Medicaid mostly being 'public'[...]"

                Did I? Ummm... where?

                What I can speak to is the clinic I work at, which is a private clinic. It's the second-largest pediatrics clinic in the second-largest city in my state. And we emphatically do accept Medicaid; our patient population is between 40% and 50% Medicaid. However, our 8 or so FTE providers can only see so many kids. When a PCP in our clinic is open for new patients, they take whomever walks through the door

                • I have no earthly idea how that stacks up compared to most primary care clinics. I get the feeling that we're less interested in the bottom line than most private clinics, but that's not, shall we say, reliable anecdotal data.

                  At some point, I'm sure I saw you express similar sentiments, talking about the clinics which do and don't take Medicaid. Thought experiment for you: what would happen if all your current patients became enrolled in Medicaid rather than other plans?

                  When I refer to public clinics, mo

                  • "Thought experiment for you: what would happen if all your current patients became enrolled in Medicaid rather than other plans?"

                    At current reimbursement levels? I'd guess that'd be bad. :-)

                    We don't have a whole lot of luxuries that can be cut. The staff pay is already crap (yes, including mine), staff size doesn't have much slack in it, we've just built a new facility that will need to be paid off over the next thirty years, and we're already pushing our IT lifecycle as far as is practical. So if that happ

                    • At current reimbursement levels? I'd guess that'd be bad. :-)

                      As I suspected: Medicaid isn't paying its fair share, instead freeloading on your paying customers. Not a viable model for expansion in its present form.

                      (I guess we could cut out our phone triage service. The purpose of our phone triage (also known as advice nurses) is to make sure that our docs are seeing the right patients. The on-duty nurses (all of them licensed) evaluate a patient by phone and do one of three things: Schedule them for a sa

    • If you don't think it is morality, then I ask you to give me a definition of morality as a framework around which to structure my argument so as to be acceptable to you in the first place.

      I could give you my definition of morality, but if you use a different definition it is all moot, so you give me your definition and I'll explain to you how it is morality, according to your own definition.
      • Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not falling for that trap. If "morality" is such a vague term that a standard definition from a neutral source is insufficient, then your argument based on "morality" is doomed without my intervention anyway. No need for us to have a side discussion about it.

        Nice try, though. :-)
        • It's no trap - I can go to google and get any number of definitions: define:morality

          # concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
          # ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
          wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

          # Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized an
    • Similarly "[...] using the government to shove government-run healthcare down our throats is itself an imposition of morality." is an unsupported assertion upon which your whole post rests. So prove it. Demonstrate that this is a moral imposition before your whole argument falls down the canyon.

      OK. Here goes. Why do you think it would be good to have government-run healthcare? Form your answer so as not to rely on or refer to ANY alleged moral good. Explain to me why the taxpayers should fund such an enter
      • "Why do you think it would be good to have government-run healthcare? Form your answer so as not to rely on or refer to ANY alleged moral good. Explain to me why the taxpayers should fund such an enterprise through their taxes without reference to any moral arguments."

        I think basic universal healthcare is good and worthwhile for the same reasons as a basic universal road network, basic universal banking oversight, basic universal firefighting services, and basic universal law enforcement are good and worthw
        • Federally funded roads don't serve a moral purpose, they (nominally) serve the Post Office, a constitutionally enumerated function of the federal government. The post office is amoral, er, so to speak.

          The others are not constitutionally enumerated functions of the federal government, and things like firefighting and police are local affairs, which is where morality, if it is to be legislated at all, SHOULD be legislated. That way I can live in a city or state with laws based on a morality I approve, and y
        • How'd I do, Major?

          Poorly. :-)
          Why do you want these things? (additional stability, security, and economic efficiency)
          What are they if not things you are making a claim that they are morally desirable?

          practical solutions to various problems of excess individual and collective risk

          And that, right there, my dear finder of peace, is a MORAL statement. You are stating that there (1) are such things as "excess" individual and collective risks and that (2) something should be done to "solve" those "problems" and th
          • "His argument was that the left is NO DIFFERENT than those it decries, other than WHAT morals are being shoved down WHOSE throats."

            Well, all right. I see that. But you also say that "ALL legislation is legislated morality". So... errr... what's left to discuss? If it's not okay to make moral arguments about government actions, and everything a government can do is a moral action, then nothing is fair game for argument.

            I mean, I see point. Hypocrisy is bad. (Oops! Another moral judgement!) But if every actio
            • So... errr... what's left to discuss?

              Uhmmm.... Which laws should govern society? And by extension, which moral codes? Just a thought.

              If it's not okay to make moral arguments about government actions, and everything a government can do is a moral action, then nothing is fair game for argument.

              Uhmmm.... *I* didn't say it wasn't "okay to make moral arguments about government actions". I said it wasn't okay to pretend you were doing anything OTHER than making moral arguments. I said it wasn't okay to act outra
              • Hrm. Well, okay. I guess maybe I'm just confused. I wasn't thinking about making moral arguments at a level so deep that "paying less in taxes is good" and "dictatorship is bad" were moral arguments. I mean, we mostly agree on those, so what's to argue?

                But okay. All arguments are moral arguments, and all government actions are moral actions. And Ed asks me to "[...] not object to right-wing using government to push right-wing morality down our throats SOLELY BECAUSE they don't think it's acceptable to use t
                • mean, we mostly agree on those, so what's to argue?

                  On the issues that we agree on, obviously there would be nothing to argue. It's the areas were there is disagreement where the arguments take place, obviously. There, the question is do you argue about the different views of right and wrong that inform decisions, or do you pretend that you are doing otherwise?

                  And Ed asks me to "[...] not object to right-wing using government to push right-wing morality down our throats SOLELY BECAUSE they don't think it's a
                  • "Uhmmm.... You could, rather stop pretending that you are opposed to "legislating morality" in and of itself and instead admit that you disagree as to what it is that the government should do (ie the morality being legislated in this instance), due to X, Y, or Z. You could quit belittling the other side(s) of the argument(s) for doing exactly what you are doing: basin their policy preferences on their moral views?"

                    Do I do that?

                    I mean, here in this discussion I've not meant to claim that there's no moral gro
                    • Do I do that?
                      Yes. You do. Yes you have. Here. It this thread. That is exactly why I made ANY post in the first place.

                      I mean, here in this discussion I've not meant to claim that there's no moral grounds for universal healthcare... of course there is.

                      Similarly "[...] using the government to shove government-run healthcare down our throats is itself an imposition of morality." is an unsupported assertion upon which your whole post rests. So prove it. Demonstrate that this is a moral imposition before your who
                    • Well, bugger.

                      I really hadn't thought of it as a primarily moral issue when this discussion started. I plead a different definition of moral issue. Like I said (too late) I thought that there was some useful distinction that could be made between "practical" issues and "moral" issues. You argue persuasively that everything is a moral issue, which makes my defense pretty much moot.

                      So, belatedly, "Gee, I never thought of it that way." Maybe you're right. Gotta think about it more.

                      As for the second half...

                      I'm f
                  • Dear RW, you're now in close competition with Rumsfeld for first place on my list of people I'm most likely to have a man-crush on.

                    You know, should I ever go that way.
                • "Dictatorship is bad" was rejected by the majority of Germans in the 1930s - they preferred dictatorship. It may seem "obvious" to us that it is "bad", but it isn't obvious to everyone. Hence it is indeed a moral judgment.

                  Or is the only valid opinion that "Government IS the problem"? :-)

                  Now you're getting the hang of it :-)
            • Eglamkowski here is trying to frame it as a purely moral issue so he can dismiss the economic benefits to suit his ideology and make an assault on liberal hypocrisy, but he's creating much of the apparent hypocrisy himself by framing the issue the way he does.

              Not exactly, I'm complaining about left-wingers who complain about the ring-wing legislating morality claiming that they don't want government legislated morality at all ("Get the government out of the bedroom!" for example is a common cry from the lef
              • "("Get the government out of the bedroom!" for example is a common cry from the left)"

                Erring on the side of FREEDOM, I hope you'll note.

                "I'm saying if you support legislated morality (and just about everybody does), then you can't say you don't support it when the other side does it, at least not as your sole argument in opposition to your opponents bills."

                Yeah, I get it. But... do I do that? Seriously, it's an honest question. I don't think I do, or at least not much. My whole confusion with Red Warrrior i
    • Yeah, interstate is efficient. Only if you don't drive near or through population centers. Try driving the DC beltway and see how "efficient" it is.

      Try driving anywhere near a major city on east coast and see how "efficient" government highways are.

      On the other hand, the back roads work fine, most people don't know they exist and thus massive fuel costs and accident costs are saved.

      But I doubt you've traveled as much as I have via land vehicles, so I presume you'll correct me with bureau driven statistics

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *

      "[...] using the government to shove government-run healthcare down our throats is itself an imposition of morality." is an unsupported assertion upon which your whole post rests. So prove it.

      Well, no, you're wrong on two points. First, it is not an assertion of fact, but an opinion, and does not need to be "proven." Second, it is self-evidently true anyway. There is no reason to have universal health care except for moral reasons:

      To me, leftist though I may be, basic universal healthcare in the US is a practical project analagous to the interstate highway system. It's a basic infrastructure that will, the evidence suggests [slashdot.org], result in more efficient healthcare delivery thereby removing a drag on the overall economy.

      That still assumes that health care is something people "should" have. Computers are expensive and if we could improve our overall economy by having the government pay for them all, why don't we do that? Because we don't view computers as morally essential, as y

  • 1) Governments Going Bankrupt: It happens. Mostly though it's bullshit. Money is there. Yes it is finite, yes it could run out. It doesn't especially in Western World type democracies. America is not going broke. Even during the Great Depression it didn't go broke.

    2) Worrying about Social Security now is pointless. Especially given you have no idea WHAT the economy will be doing in a decade. What productivity will be like, yadda yadda.

    3) If Nationalized Healthcare is so goddamned great then why
    • The US government went broke in 1994 and 1995. The government actually had to shut down for lack of money.

    • 1) Governments Going Bankrupt: It happens. Mostly though it's bullshit. Money is there. Yes it is finite, yes it could run out. It doesn't especially in Western World type democracies. America is not going broke. Even during the Great Depression it didn't go broke.

      Yep - the key point here is that in order to avoid the government itself going bankrupt, it dumps on everyone in the country, forcing them closer to bankruptcy instead. So, when the Social Security pyramid crumbles, it doesn't make the federal g

  • if we weren't so busy killing and getting killed around the world, there'd be enough money for some workable middle-ground solution. maybe we could have some basic national health care. it wouldn't solve everyone's healthcare needs perfectly, but it would be a foundation. those with money or employers wanting to motivate employees could get insurance that would cover better/faster/whatever healthcare by paying for it themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

      If we'd subject the decision to a proper free market, we could find out which of those options we actually want: the killing, or the charitable health care.

      • the only free-market killers are hit men. are you advocating the legalization of hit men? or how else would you implement free-market killing?
  • Not all of us advocating some form of nationalized health care are "left wingers." I'm a radical moderate, and can recognize a market failure when I see it. Our current system is already a drag on the economy, excludes millions from getting the care they need, and ties up billions of dollars in inefficient financial processes that effectively reduce the money supply (if a typical corporation had a Days Sales Outstanding figure on their AR line equivalent to that of health-care organizations, they'd go und

  • Amen (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    The liberals self-delude themselves into thinking they don't try push their morality/religion/etc. on everyone. Hate speech laws, gun laws, welfare, mandatory schooling, the list goes on.

    The libertarians are the only ones who can honestly say they don't want to push their morality on anyone (unless you call liberty itself a kind of morality :-). That said, contrary to popular belief, the liberals do it a lot more than the conservatives do, as a whole.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

      Actually, libertarians wouldn't even force freedom onto anybody. Anyone who found themselves free in such a system and didn't like it could use the right to contract and/or their other rights to band together into a system of communism, socialism, democracy, theocracy, totalitarianism, or whatever the want. Provided, of course, that they don't force anything on anybody else.

      Speaking of forcing morality on people, abortion is a pretty irrevocable way of forcing one's morality onto another person -- the c

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *

        Actually, libertarians wouldn't even force freedom onto anybody. Anyone who found themselves free in such a system and didn't like it could use the right to contract and/or their other rights to band together into a system of communism, socialism, democracy, theocracy, totalitarianism, or whatever the want.

        But then they are making the free choice to band together into such a system ... and, probably, to leave that system when if they choose to. So they still have freedom, whether they like it or not.

  • The supreme irony to me is that to me, morality means not forcing other people to do what I want them to, using force only to defend my own rights.

    • I am curious about your morality when it comes to using force to defend the rights of others.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdavidb ( 449077 ) *

        Most cases involve simple delegation of rights: say I hire you to defend my rights with force. That's moral. Say I need my rights defended and you volunteer to do it for free. That's moral.

        The somewhat iffy cases come in when you have a situation where someone's rights are being violated and for some reason they cannot ask for help. Simplest situation: lady is being mugged and strangled in an alley and cannot speak, and you step in to defend her. More complicated: a country is being dominated by a di

Slashdot Top Deals

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.

Close