Re: For those that are a few bricks short and don't understanhd how publishing/distribution deals work
Nostromo
-0700, Anno Domini:
>Different regions have different publishers/distributors and is why
>some of you can't get in on the D2D $5.00 deals. If they could legally
>sell those games anywhere in the world then they would, but they can't
>due to other publishers/distributors having sale rights in your
>region. Wake up and smell the coffee next time before you all get your
>panties in a bunch over something that is not D2Ds fault.
Of course it is. They made the limited deal with the developer/local
publisher (or whoever has the rights), after the fact, without bothering to
secure more extensive rights & coverage or perhaps they couldn't even be
bothered trying. It's like rubbing it in foreigners faces & guess what? No
sale now for the developer from a this gamer (& likely many other potential
international gamers who were on the fence about this title), EVA! They're
both just as culpable of this sand kicking in our face as each other & you
need to get the first clue on how to see shit from other ppl's perspective,
or you'll just end up a lonely, bitter prick in the RL, just like you've
shown yourself to be here. Have a nice day (if you even know how) :-p.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0700, Anno Domini:
>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:13:45 +1000, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>
>>Of course it is. They made the limited deal with the developer/local
>>publisher (or whoever has the rights), after the fact, without bothering to
>>secure more extensive rights & coverage or perhaps they couldn't even be
>>bothered trying. It's like rubbing it in foreigners faces & guess what? No
>>sale now for the developer from a this gamer (& likely many other potential
>>international gamers who were on the fence about this title), EVA! They're
>>both just as culpable of this sand kicking in our face as each other & you
>>need to get the first clue on how to see shit from other ppl's perspective,
>>or you'll just end up a lonely, bitter prick in the RL, just like you've
>>shown yourself to be here. Have a nice day (if you even know how) :-p.
>
>Being a lonely bitter prick is still far better than being a thief.
Keep many broken record collections you actually paid for numbnuts? Because
this is really starting to seem you're a leading expert at kicking tired old
tyres.
In any case, better an honest thief than a delusional liar wracked with
subconscious guilt trying to play the same ol' transference game. Or a
piss-poor troll. ;-p
(anyone want to lay some money on what a full compliance audit of this
wanker's PC(s) would more than likely reveal, *guffaw*? It's always the
ones who protest the loudest... :).
--
Nostromo
Magnate
>
> Different regions have different publishers/distributors and is why
> some of you can't get in on the D2D $5.00 deals. If they could legally
> sell those games anywhere in the world then they would, but they can't
> due to other publishers/distributors having sale rights in your
> region. Wake up and smell the coffee next time before you all get your
> panties in a bunch over something that is not D2Ds fault.
This is almost as laughable as that massive thread about one bunch of suits
suing another bunch of suits over whether some tawdry cash-in is a licence
infringement or not. It all just adds to the ever-growing pile of evidence
that the entire current IP regime is a mediaeval crock of shit in desperate
need of replacing with something suitable for years starting with '2'.
CC
David Lamb
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:39:43 +0100, "Magnate" <n...@receiving.here>
> wrote:
>> It all just adds to the ever-growing pile of evidence
>> that the entire current IP regime is a mediaeval crock of shit in desperate
>> need of replacing with something suitable for years starting with '2'.
> Translation = Waaaaaa....I wan`t my games for $5.00 too...waaaaaa...
I don't know what "Magnate" meant, but if I'd uttered the his phrase I
quoted above I'd have meant "an IP regime where most of the money goes
to creators instead of middlemen"
Morgan
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:08:25 +1000, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> (anyone want to lay some money on what a full compliance audit of
>> this wanker's PC(s) would more than likely reveal, *guffaw*? It's
>> always the ones who protest the loudest... :).
>
> dumb enough to go bragging about it on the internet. "Loose lips sink
> ships".
You really think copyright enforcement agencies go hunting for people on
newsgroups?
I shot JFK.
Should I now be worried that the feds are going to come after me?
If you are a troll, you are a crap one. Nossy is a troll but at least he
has rudiments of style and competence, all be it malformed ones. You're
just a laughing stock.
Morgan
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:39:43 +0100, "Magnate" <n...@receiving.here>
> wrote:
>
>
>> of suits suing another bunch of suits over whether some tawdry
>> cash-in is a licence infringement or not. It all just adds to the
>> ever-growing pile of evidence that the entire current IP regime is a
>> mediaeval crock of shit in desperate need of replacing with
>> something suitable for years starting with '2'.
>>
>> CC
>
Care to explain you're thought process behind that conclusion?
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
That's the nicest thing you've said to me in a long time Morgy! *blush*
I'm not really a nasty troll, just a very naughty boy. ;)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:39:43 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Magnate
>wrote:
>Yup. The "imaginary economy" is vapourware. We here in America are truly f!!ed.
>We produce *nothing*, and we're fighting over the scraps of nothing.
"Yeah, my blood�s so mad feels like coagulatin�
I�m sitting here just contemplatin�
I can�t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don�t pass legislation
And marches alone can�t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin�
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin�"
Old Barry was ahead of his time...wrong decade, wrong war, right message ;).
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Post count...? <EG>
--
Nostromo
Morgan
news:cgv3c5dbgr4t4v995...@4ax.com...
> Yes, you shgould be very worried now. I expect your post has been
> flagged by Eschalon.
Yep and the Feds will be here any minute.
>>If you are a troll, you are a crap one. Nossy is a troll but at least he
>>has rudiments of style and competence, all be it malformed ones. You're
>>just a laughing stock.
>
> If I am such a lousy troll then how is it you are dumb enought to
> respond to my troll. Doh!
Because you're not sparking debate and conflict about an issue. You're
being berated by all and sundry for being a moron.
Morgan
"Nostromo" <nos...@forme.org> wrote in message
news:u814c51on9m057nkp...@4ax.com...
I'm, always saying nice things about you. I just don't post them. :-)
Leo
blabbed:
>
>You really think copyright enforcement agencies go hunting for people on
>newsgroups?
>
>I shot JFK.
And that was the last we ever heard from poor old Morgan.
Leo
Morgan
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:59:41 +0100, "Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Because you're not sparking debate and conflict about an issue.
>> You're being berated by all and sundry for being a moron.
>
> I'm not even attempting to be funny or likeable. I'm not even
> trolling, just telling it as it is, dipshit. I thrive on aggro so,
> hey, thanks.
Do you thrive on looking like an idiot as well?
Magnate
Thank you. That's a good start, but I'd also introduce an angle about an IP
regime being about fostering creativity and encouraging sharing and
collaboration, and definitively not about maximising revenue or wealth
creation. Where the presumption is that everything is open, and nobody can
restrict anyone else's access to or use of their IP except under specific
circumstances (you know, national security yawn yawn). Then we sort out the
revenue/payment model AFTER getting that basic concept right - a complete
reverse of the current situation where everything is restricted to protect
somebody's revenue.
It's a long way off, I know.
CC
Antonio López de Santa Anna
>
> Do you thrive on looking like an idiot as well?
Stop trying to play the position of the better man, you are just as much
a prick as me. Only difference is that I don't give a fuck what you or
anyone else thinks of me. I only respond to you for the hell of it and
not because you are pissing me off at all. You, on the other hand are
easily manipulated which is the sign of someone of weak mind.
Antonio López de Santa Anna
> Care to explain you're thought process behind that conclusion?
>
>
If you knew exactly how this thread came about you wouldn't need to ask
that question, moron.
Antonio López de Santa Anna
> Yup. The "imaginary economy" is vapourware. We here in America are truly f!!ed.
> We produce *nothing*, and we're fighting over the scraps of nothing.
>
Lower your standard of living and go work for $2.00 a day and they will
manufacture in the U.S. instead of China, etc.
Morgan
I know how this thread came about. You got upset that someone pointed out
you're inability to post relevant information in another thread and you
threw a tantrum. As for calling me a moron. That's a little arrogant and
arrogance has to be earned, Troll.
Morgan
>
>>
>> Do you thrive on looking like an idiot as well?
>
> Stop trying to play the position of the better man,
I am a better man because you aren't even a man. You're a child. At any rate
I'm done with you. You're a self confessed troll and as such any argument
you attempt to make is null and void, your are the scum of Usenet. Jog on.
Morgan
> Yes. So insensitive of you, you "arrogant American." The only
> stereotypes that are okay are European ones, because they're
> "culture," which Americans *don't* have. When Americans get culture,
> and a nice socialist welfare state as any "civilized" country has, we
> can enjoy the higher prices too. Until then, we should just lie down
> and "play nice."
>
> Fuck that.
For the record I was referring to him as an arrogant person, his nationality
is an unrelated non-issue. However the above paranoia is *one* of the
reason that your country has such a bad reputation in the global community.
That, along with the perception that its democracy doesn't work, its funding
of terrorism (before its "WAR ON TERROR") its inability to distinguish
between enemy and friendly military forces in times of conflict and as
Phillip K Dick said, the fact that "The American people are basically
anti-intellectual."
This is of course a stereotype and not true of all of your countrymen as a
whole, it is however a stereotype that you are perpetrating.
Nostromo
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 23:30:22 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Morgan wrote:
>
>> This is of course a stereotype and not true of all of your countrymen as a
>> whole, it is however a stereotype that you are perpetrating.
>
> in their hearts, really do not like the fact that America usurped their place
> at the top of the hegemony, the same way the French resented the British when
> the hegemony shifted in earlier days.
>
> And you can ask Napoleon if I'm wrong about that.
>
> It ain't "paranoia" Morgan. It *was* hyperbole. I hope you didn't miss that in
> your zeal to throw around pejoratives.
Shit, I thought you were talking to Antonio nym-shi(f)ter so am now
completely confused as to who's up who & in which direction with this
thread, heh.
--
Nostromo
Briarroot
> Zaghadka wrote:
>
>> Yes. So insensitive of you, you "arrogant American." The only
>> stereotypes that are okay are European ones, because they're
>> "culture," which Americans *don't* have. When Americans get culture,
>> and a nice socialist welfare state as any "civilized" country has, we
>> can enjoy the higher prices too. Until then, we should just lie down
>> and "play nice."
>>
>> Fuck that.
>
> For the record I was referring to him as an arrogant person, his
> nationality is an unrelated non-issue. However the above paranoia is
> *one* of the reason that your country has such a bad reputation in the
> global community. That, along with the perception that its democracy
> doesn't work, its funding of terrorism (before its "WAR ON TERROR") its
> inability to distinguish between enemy and friendly military forces in
> times of conflict and as Phillip K Dick said, the fact that "The
> American people are basically anti-intellectual."
>
You realize that "Antonio" is actually the "Juarez" troll - he who
changes his nym on a seemingly hourly basis - *and* he's a Canadian.
I'm ignoring the rest of what you said. I'm an anti-intellectual, ya
see. <wink>
--
"A funny thing happened on the way to the collapse of market capitalism
in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It
didn't." - Irwin Stelzer, The Times of London
Morgan
> Morgan wrote:
>> Zaghadka wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. So insensitive of you, you "arrogant American." The only
>>> stereotypes that are okay are European ones, because they're
>>> "culture," which Americans *don't* have. When Americans get culture,
>>> and a nice socialist welfare state as any "civilized" country has,
>>> we can enjoy the higher prices too. Until then, we should just lie
>>> down and "play nice."
>>>
>>> Fuck that.
>>
>> For the record I was referring to him as an arrogant person, his
>> nationality is an unrelated non-issue. However the above paranoia is
>> *one* of the reason that your country has such a bad reputation in
>> the global community. That, along with the perception that its
>> democracy doesn't work, its funding of terrorism (before its "WAR ON
>> TERROR") its inability to distinguish between enemy and friendly
>> military forces in times of conflict and as Phillip K Dick said, the
>> fact that "The American people are basically anti-intellectual."
>>
>
> You realize that "Antonio" is actually the "Juarez" troll - he who
> changes his nym on a seemingly hourly basis - *and* he's a Canadian.
>
> I'm ignoring the rest of what you said. I'm an anti-intellectual, ya
> see. <wink>
You probably should have overcome your aversion to intellectuals and read to
the end where I pointed out that I was portraying a stereotype and made the
point that Zaghadka was basically helping to perpetuate it. :-)
Morgan
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 23:30:22 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
> Morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> countrymen as a whole, it is however a stereotype that you are
>> perpetrating.
>
Er, yeh, you are.
> I've met and known plenty of people, and Europeans,
> somewhere deep in their hearts, really do not like the fact that
> America usurped their place at the top of the hegemony,
So you claim to be a mind reader?
> the same way
> the French resented the British when the hegemony shifted in earlier
> days.
>
> And you can ask Napoleon if I'm wrong about that.
Earlier days? That is an infinitely broad spectrum. If you're hinting at the
Napoleonic wars then you mean the early 19th century, this is only a couple
of hundred years ago and doesn't really class as "earlier" days in the grand
scheme of things.
> It ain't "paranoia" Morgan. It *was* hyperbole. I hope you didn't
> miss that in your zeal to throw around pejoratives.
Sounded to me like you got on your hind legs because you're though that I
was calling a fool arrogant based on his nationality. At no point did I
reference his nationality so why did you jump to that conclusion?
Morgan
> You realize that "Antonio" is actually the "Juarez" troll - he who
> changes his nym on a seemingly hourly basis - *and* he's a Canadian.
>
> I'm ignoring the rest of what you said. I'm an anti-intellectual, ya
> see. <wink>
Also for the record. I never said that troll-boy was an American, that was
Z, and that was who I was replying to.
Briarroot
That would have involved too much thinking. Now stop this, you're
making my head hurt! <grin>
--
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by
parts." - Edmund Burke
Briarroot
Okay. <cough>
Morgan
> That would have involved too much thinking. Now stop this, you're
> making my head hurt! <grin>
:-)
Morgan
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:51:33 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
> Morgan wrote:
>
>> Zaghadka wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 23:30:22 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
>>> Morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is of course a stereotype and not true of all of your
>>>> countrymen as a whole, it is however a stereotype that you are
>>>> perpetrating.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Er, yeh, you are.
>>
>>> I've met and known plenty of people, and Europeans,
>>> somewhere deep in their hearts, really do not like the fact that
>>> America usurped their place at the top of the hegemony,
>>
>> So you claim to be a mind reader?
>>
> their works, and see that they are explicitly saying so.
I asked because you used the phrase "somewhere deep in their hearts" this
suggest that you are inferring, if something is buried deep, it is not
openly shared. Also I would point out that you're infinitely small sample
is by no means a reflection of an entitle continent.
> I don't know what you're thinking, but Lord, when someone has *told*
> me they think as much...
As above.
> Such as my Belgian friend who told me that the entire U.S. economy
> was entering into "failed state" territory, or my Dutch friend who
> believed that the American election process was inherently flawed
This is a fair observation based on the evidence that is portrayed in the
media. I'm not saying that it's an accurate portrayal but it is the
portrayal that the rest of the world will judge you by particularly as most
of it is the US media.
> and
> should be more like the Dutch election process, which he insisted
> such things could not happen to.
>
> Or the numerous English friends I have. Or all the G4-G20 protesters
> I see.
Well as an Englishman myself here's my interpretation of your country. The
American stereotype is a moronic, warmongering, inbreed, who has no clue
about the world beyond their own boarders and in most cases inside their own
boarders. A good example of this is the current who'har about introducing a
NHS style health system. Where one of your newspapers reported that if
Stephen Hawking had been British and been treated by the NHS then he
wouldn't be alive today. This is great argument until you point out the
fact that he is British and is on record as saying that he owes his life to
the NHS. This is the stereotype that you are fighting against and you arte
not helping yourself. I know that this is a stereotype, but in fairness
it's a stereotype that a lot of you're nationals (you included) perpetrate.
There are a lot of very intelligent people in your country who do not fit
this stereotype but their voice is obscured by the moronic masses. Read a
bit of Bill Bryson or something for a good example of what you should be
portraying.
As for the inference that European countries are somehow jealous of you,
note this for England: Your country is partly responsible for the funding of
the IRA, a terrorist group responsible countless murders of innocent,
civilian, men, women and children in England. You mentioned earlier that
Europeans consider you arrogant, think of that fact, then couple it with
your war on terror.
The history of Britain and most specifically the British Empire is bloody,
shameful and an adoration. I'm not arrogant enough to claim otherwise.
For the record I've got a lot of respect for a lot of Americans and your
current president, I sincerely hope that he can bring your country to a new
level of self-awareness and the morons that carry on the stereotype are put
in their place in favour of the people who synapse still fire.
> WTF, Morgan? I don't read your mind. I read others, because they have
> offered me a "piece of their mind," in all seriousness, earnestness,
> and claiming to be reasonable.
>
> So, yes. I can "read minds" when they "say something."
>
> You may, in fact, be reading my mind right now, Morgan. ;^)
I see a lot of dead air.
> Hey Morgan. You suck at recognizing irony. You need to take some
> oxygen.
Possibly, or there is also the more realistc views that you "suck" at
portraying it, or understanging what the word even means.
Peter Huebner
zagh...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On an aside, so the American stereotype now includes not being able to spell
> simple words like "borders?" Or is that one of the words you Welshmen spell all
> funny-like, in between rounds of intercourse with livestock? ;^)
>
Maybe he was talking about the myopic land-lady? A damning inditement
indeed: she can't see further than her boarders!
I must confess, it always makes me cringe if people can't spell the
difference between there, their, and they're, nor hoo-ha, masturbation
(what's masterful about it?) or breathe (with an 'e' at the end). Heck,
and I'm not even a native speaker.
However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks screaming
'socialism' when they hear about a public health system are so pig-
ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on their own shoes.
Public health is good for poor people, the seriously rich don't need it.
Yet it's mostly the poor screaming their heads off ... ironically,
healthcare in the US is so expensive that even some middling illness can
bankrupt some rather well to-do middle class citizens. That's just about
unique in the First World. (and no, I'm not making this up, I had to
wire money to a late friend who lost her house, her car and was living
in a rented garage within a year of being disabled, just so she could
pay her untilities bills -- people like Steven Brust and Joan Vinge are
sitting in that canoe from what I've heard and they're not exactly
trailer park trash...).
Entertaining comedy-noir to watch from afar, but very very scary if one
thinks about good people who live there and have to live with that.
Fortunately, not everybody over there is that dumb - but a lot of what
we see here makes it look as though nearly half of the population of the
US are waiting for teotwawki 'cause they would rather live in an anarchy
like Somalia. Hey, no public health, no gun control, no taxes --
wheeeee! These are the people who vote b-movie actors into public office
because they can't tell the difference between the person and the roles
they're playing on-screen. Chuck Norris for president! (think I'd prefer
WC Fields myself).
<sardonic cackle at 03:30 -- allow for some levity of lightheaded what-
passes-for-'thought'>
-P.
Kyle Haight
Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>
>However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks screaming
>'socialism' when they hear about a public health system are so pig-
>ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on their own shoes.
In what sense is a publically owned health care system not socialized?
The issue is not whether it's socialism, the issue is whether socialism
is morally justifiable or practically workable. You seem to take the
view that it is; I (and many other Americans) disagree.
>These are the people who vote b-movie actors into public office
>because they can't tell the difference between the person and the roles
>they're playing on-screen.
If you actually think that's an accurate description of Reagan's
political career, or the reasons for his success, you are... what's
the phrase... "so pig-ignorant [you] don't even know when [you're]
pissing on [your] own shoes."
--
Kyle Haight
Nostromo
17:34:08 -0500, Anno Domini:
>In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
>Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>>
>>However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks screaming
>>'socialism' when they hear about a public health system are so pig-
>>ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on their own shoes.
>
>In what sense is a publically owned health care system not socialized?
>The issue is not whether it's socialism, the issue is whether socialism
>is morally justifiable or practically workable. You seem to take the
>view that it is; I (and many other Americans) disagree.
You do know the USSR is no longer, dontcha Kyle...? ;-p
>>These are the people who vote b-movie actors into public office
>>because they can't tell the difference between the person and the roles
>>they're playing on-screen.
>
>If you actually think that's an accurate description of Reagan's
>political career, or the reasons for his success, you are... what's
>the phrase... "so pig-ignorant [you] don't even know when [you're]
>pissing on [your] own shoes."
Read what he said again. He said that's what the majority of the dimwits who
voted him into power probably think, not what *he* thinks of Ronnie. I'm
sure there are a few of you yanks who had very compelling & rational reasons
for voting Reagan or Bush, for example, into power...at the time. >8^D
Now, who's your favourite pres of all time Mr H?
--
Nostromo
Morgan
> In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
> Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>>
>> However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks
>> screaming 'socialism' when they hear about a public health system
>> are so pig- ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on
>> their own shoes.
>
> In what sense is a publically owned health care system not socialized?
> The issue is not whether it's socialism, the issue is whether
> socialism is morally justifiable or practically workable. You seem
> to take the view that it is; I (and many other Americans) disagree.
Morally justifiable? I assume you mean this it's unfair for the well off to
be subsidising the lower paid people in the country. I personally look at
it the other way. How can it be morally justifiable that a working
man/woman can't afford decent health care. Every job contributes to
society, every job is important.
A surgeon is a highly trained professional who has worked hard and invested
a considerable few years of his life to qualify. It's fair that he should
be paid more than someone who left school at the first opportunity. However
if the hospital isn't kept clean by the far lower paid cleaning staff then
quite a few of the patients are most likely going to catch infections and
die. Both jobs are important, both people are entitled to good quality of
life, access to basic medical care should be part of that. This is just my
opinion but I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.
I think the problem is that a lot of Americans (and feel free to correct me
here) simply don't understand that the word socialism is a very broad term
that covers a lot of different political ideals. A lot of Americans seem to
think that socialism means communism and that's the end of it. Therefore
anything socialist is bad. I think that was the point that Peter was
making. I could be wrong though.
Morgan
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:01:41 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
> Morgan wrote:
Well done you found fault with my spelling, a fantastic response worthy a
true master of the debate. :-)
Morgan
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:55:21 +0100, "Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Also for the record. I never said that troll-boy was an American,
>> that was Z, and that was who I was replying to.
>>
Actually, fat is part of the American stereotype. You should have gone for a
comment about bad teeth or cars that can corner properly or something. :-)
Briarroot
> ...
>
> However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks screaming
> 'socialism' when they hear about a public health system are so pig-
> ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on their own shoes.
> Public health is good for poor people, the seriously rich don't need it.
> Yet it's mostly the poor screaming their heads off ... ironically,
> healthcare in the US is so expensive that even some middling illness can
> bankrupt some rather well to-do middle class citizens. That's just about
> unique in the First World.
>
Wouldn't you agree that it's important to understand *why* US health
care is so expensive *before* proposing a solution?
--
"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State
comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power,
from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him
accordingly." - Henry David Thoreau
David Lamb
> I'm
> sure there are a few of you yanks who had very compelling & rational reasons
> for voting Reagan or Bush, for example, into power...at the time. >8^D
He seemed better than the other guy at the time?
I was in grad school in the US when Ronnie was elected, and while lots
of my American colleagues were pretty left-wing and hated Ronnie, some
of them acknowledged serious reservations about Carter. Ignoring the
always-vote-party-lines folks (ie as to whether or not they were/are
rational; I make no claims either way), enough swing voters who
originally voted for Carter in 1976 might have become disenchanted and
decided it was worth taking a chance on the other guy.
I wasn't following Bush/Gore/Nader much; I was safely back in Canada by
then.
David Lamb
> Wouldn't you agree that it's important to understand *why* US health
> care is so expensive *before* proposing a solution?
For example, insanely high malpractice awards? Although I've heard
people say in many circumstances you *must* sue for huge malpractice
claims to be able to pay for the additional health care needed for
long-term medical intervention when a doctor screws up, however mildly.
Peter Huebner
kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org says...
> In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
> Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
> >
> >However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks screaming
> >'socialism' when they hear about a public health system are so pig-
> >ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on their own shoes.
>
> In what sense is a publically owned health care system not socialized?
> The issue is not whether it's socialism, the issue is whether socialism
> is morally justifiable or practically workable. You seem to take the
> view that it is; I (and many other Americans) disagree.
>
ROTFL (or should that be 'big, heavy sigh'?) -- you're actually proving
my point, and you don't even realize it.
-P.
Morgan
> wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, fat is part of the American stereotype. You should have
>> gone for a comment about bad teeth or cars that can corner properly
>> or something. :-)
>>
>
> limey bitches do every day down at some smelly pub on the corner.
Sounds like a plan. While I'm doing that would you mind staying sober,
electing (in the loosest, non-democratic, sense of the word) a complete
moron for president (twice) and making a fool of yourself for the entire
world.
Nostromo
<snip tortuously long expose of the US health system>
> Thanks for your input, Peter. I hope this is helpful background on the many
> issues at stake in my country. Our public health policy has deteriorated to a
> vanishing point, and our politicians lack the will to take the difficult steps
> needed to fix it, and the risks of being thrown-out in the next election.
Cheers Zag. And here I thought WE had problems with Medicare in our country!
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Heh, our current administration's slogan was "Time for a change!". I
hope the dimwits who voted for this fence-post turtle who does nothing
but yap & jetset about are happy now. They can have their change & eat
it too I say! :). Roll on federal elections early next year.
--
Nostromo
Briarroot
> Kyle Haight wrote:
>> In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
>> Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>> However, that aside he's got a damn good point: those rednecks
>>> screaming 'socialism' when they hear about a public health system
>>> are so pig- ignorant they don't even know when they're pissing on
>>> their own shoes.
>>
>> In what sense is a publically owned health care system not socialized?
>> The issue is not whether it's socialism, the issue is whether
>> socialism is morally justifiable or practically workable. You seem
>> to take the view that it is; I (and many other Americans) disagree.
>
> Morally justifiable? I assume you mean this it's unfair for the well
> off to be subsidising the lower paid people in the country. I
> personally look at it the other way. How can it be morally justifiable
> that a working man/woman can't afford decent health care. Every job
> contributes to society, every job is important.
>
While the above is undoubtedly true, I don't think judgment of an
individual's 'contribution to society' should be the basis for assigning
rights; *privileges perhaps, but not rights. Rights are, or should be,
intrinsic and universal. Note too, that we already have a program in
place which guarantees health care for the indigent; it's called
Medicaid. The fact that it does not cover all the poor (they have to be
registered for Welfare) is irrelevant. That can be fixed via regulatory
power, but what we're seeing now is a demand by the *middle* class for
health care reform, not the poor.
There are two identifiable themes in America's health care debate...
1) Is health care a right or is it a privilege, and if the former, who pays?
2) How is the first question being manipulated by the political parties
in their desire to obtain and hold power?
1) If health care is a right, then what about those requirements for
life that are more important, such as food, shelter and clothing?
Should those things be 'socialized' too? In the USA, the bottom 40% of
income earners already pay not taxes or get a net return; i.e they are
subsidized by those who pay taxes. 91% of all income taxes are paid
currently by just the top 20% of income earners. The top 1% alone pays
36% of all taxes. That leads us to #2...
2) When the party in power (in matters little which it is) promises to
*pay* 50% of the electorate (or as in this case, make life easier for
them) from the money earned by only 20% of the electorate, they gain a
distinct political advantage. The Democrats have been using this
formula since the Great Society programs were begun in the 1960s
(Welfare, Medicare & Medicaid). Understandably, these programs are
quite popular with the recipients but far less so with the minority who
are tasked with paying for them. What these programs have created is a
permanent class of voters who perceive that they receive cash benefits
from the Democratic party. As I see it, that's why the Dems are so
eager to launch a national health service. They've got a lock on the
bottom class of income earners already and they're trying to raise the
income level at which they get control. (Note: I hold no special
contempt for Democrats [I am one], I'm sure that the Republicans wish
they had dreamed up this scheme!)
check this article for more details about the current income tax structure.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/08/transfer-machine
All this is quite apart from the moral and ethical question inevitably
raised by this debate, but one thing stands out in my mind beyond
everything else: we Americans would not even be talking about "health
care reform," or health insurance reform," or a "public option" at all
if health care was less expensive than it is. It's the *cost* to the
middle class that is the underlying impetus to this whole thing.(**) If
costs were driven lower the debate over a public option or a national
health service would evaporate. This ain't about the poor! In my
opinion, health care costs are so high, and have been rising at rates
almost double the cost of living for decades for one important reason:
government interference! (You *knew* I'd say that, right? <g>)
(**) In my opinion, medical services in the USA are inordinately costly
because of the system which has evolved wherein a third party stands
between buyer and seller and whenever third parties are involved, costs
always rise. That third party is the insurance company. The majority
of Americans receive health care insurance through their employers, who
receive a tax break (some $220 billion/yr in lost revenue) for doing so,
but they don't use it *as* insurance, they use it as an essentially
'free' service. If it were truly "insurance" it would be used only in
cases of catastrophic illness or accident. As it stands know, they
perceive health care as 'free' and that inevitably translates into
greater and greater reliance without the normal constraints applied in
every other form of transaction.
> A surgeon is a highly trained professional who has worked hard and
> invested a considerable few years of his life to qualify. It's fair
> that he should be paid more than someone who left school at the first
> opportunity. However if the hospital isn't kept clean by the far lower
> paid cleaning staff then quite a few of the patients are most likely
> going to catch infections and die. Both jobs are important, both people
> are entitled to good quality of life, access to basic medical care
> should be part of that. This is just my opinion but I don't see how
> anyone can see it any other way.
>
But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the surgeons
should pay for the well-being of the janitorial staff.
> I think the problem is that a lot of Americans (and feel free to correct
> me here) simply don't understand that the word socialism is a very broad
> term that covers a lot of different political ideals. A lot of
> Americans seem to think that socialism means communism and that's the
> end of it.
>
I agree, and I'd go even further and suggest that most Americans don't
understand what any of these "-isms" actually mean. You've probably
seen some of the tea-party protesters carrying signs proclaiming that
ObamaCare is Communist standing right beside someone carrying a sign
proclaiming that ObamaCare's supporters are Nazis! Btw, I don't think
Americans are any different in their ignorance than any other national
group. The vast majority of people are too busy tending to their own
business to take the trouble to learn about these things, and the system
they tend to know best is the one with which they have direct
experience. Eastern Europeans seem to have a better understanding of
Communism than most Americans, but have trouble identifying Capitalism;
Americans, just the reverse.
--
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule
it." - H.L. Mencken
Briarroot
>
> 1. We *have* a public health system. It's called Medicare/Medicaid. If you get
> truly disabled, or are elderly, you are eligible for full Part A, B, and D
> coverage. It costs a pittance. If you have worked for any significant portion
> of your life, and you get disabled, you are entitled to a check. It's not
> great, it has lots of cracks folks can fall through, but it works.
>
> If you are truly poor, you can get Medicaid coverage, which sucks but is hardly
> nonexistent.
>
> Everyone else tries to get covered by private insurance. So we have a "public
> health system" already. Rather than trying to make that "system" work better,
> we instead discuss adding extra "options," centrally, with no regard for the
> vastly different regional needs of the country.
>
Exactly! <applause>
> 2. Medicare is approaching bankruptcy because Medicare is an *insurance* plan
> that tries to insure only high-risk clients. i.e.: The disabled and the
> elderly. It's stupid. There's no way on this earth to make it profitable.
>
And tries to hold costs down by price controls, which has resulted in
fewer and fewer doctors agreeing to treat Medicare patients.
> 3. The Dems are hoping to make Medicare available to _everyone_ to cover this
> shortfall, misadministration, etc. This is the "public option" they so ardently
> push. It is not for the benefit of the people. It is to cover their asses.
> They're trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat to cover a failing policy.
>
They also want to *force* everyone currently uninsured to buy into the
system, hoping thus to relieve some of the financial burden of those you
mentioned in #2.
> 4. HMO's, our experiment into managed care, do not work. There are many horror
> stories, often ending in communities having to take up collections for the care
> of people who *have* "coverage." Having the government run one will make it
> double not work. We have to address the Kennedy/Nixon HMO problem first.
>
The real answer, and the one which has surprisingly been overlooked, is
for everyone to *stop* buying insurance for routine medical services.
If everyone in the country bought insurance solely for catastrophic
illness or accident and paid for their routine medical needs with cash,
prices for *both* insurance and medical services would come down. You'd
be amazed how grateful my dentist was when I asked him if I could
negotiate a price seeing as how I was paying in cash. He was overjoyed
to cut the paperwork and now gives me 30% off his standard rates for
"insured" patients. The same was true when last I saw an eye doctor.
They *hate* insurance.
> I'm all for *real* choices.
>
I will protest against *any* legislation that forces me to pay for the
privilege of drawing breath. Mandates are unconstitutional!
> I am against single payer because all that means is scarcity will be managed by
> bureaucrats, instead of individuals, and that has ended up poorly in almost
> every health system I've seen. It's better to just regulate scarcity by cost,
> as long as those costs are kept reasonable by a free marketplace and government
> grants.
>
Right, and how long do you think it will be until some bright bureaucrat
decides that individual citizens' life-style decisions have a direct
effect on the cost of medical care? "Sorry, we're from the government.
Put down that soda!"
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>> Wouldn't you agree that it's important to understand *why* US health
>> care is so expensive *before* proposing a solution?
>
> For example, insanely high malpractice awards?
>
Yup. While tort reform *should* be Job #1, because doctors routinely
perform many unnecessary tests in order to protect themselves from
malpractice suites, thus adding to everyone's expense, the Democrats
don't even want to discuss it. Obama mentions it from time to time, but
does nothing whatever about it. Trial lawyers pretty much *own* the
Democratic Party, ya see.
> Although I've heard
> people say in many circumstances you *must* sue for huge malpractice
> claims to be able to pay for the additional health care needed for
> long-term medical intervention when a doctor screws up, however mildly.
>
Heh. Actually, that's covered by law. If they screw you up, they must
fix you up - free.
Mark Morrison
<Santa...@Alamo.invlaid> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:37:38 +0100, "Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, fat is part of the American stereotype. You should have gone for a
>>comment about bad teeth or cars that can corner properly or something. :-)
>>
>
>OK, go get drunk and make a fool of yourself for the CTVs like all you
>limey bitches do every day down at some smelly pub on the corner.
Did you mean CCTV ?
Morgan
> Morgan wrote:
>> Kyle Haight wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
>>> Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>> justifiable? I assume you mean this it's unfair for the well
>> off to be subsidising the lower paid people in the country. I
>> personally look at it the other way. How can it be morally
>> justifiable that a working man/woman can't afford decent health
>> care. Every job contributes to society, every job is important.
>>
>
> While the above is undoubtedly true, I don't think judgment of an
> individual's 'contribution to society' should be the basis for
> assigning rights;
You misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we should measure an individuals
contribution to society and assign right accordingly. To be honest, reading
what I wrote I don't see how you reached that concussion.
> 1) If health care is a right, then what about those requirements for
> life that are more important, such as food, shelter and clothing?
> Should those things be 'socialized' too?
You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care bills and
medical insurance. It's apples and oranges. If someone is in a low paid job
they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical bills are another
matter.
>> A surgeon is a highly trained professional who has worked hard and
>> invested a considerable few years of his life to qualify. It's fair
>> that he should be paid more than someone who left school at the first
>> opportunity. However if the hospital isn't kept clean by the far
>> lower paid cleaning staff then quite a few of the patients are most
>> likely going to catch infections and die. Both jobs are important,
>> both people are entitled to good quality of life, access to basic
>> medical care should be part of that. This is just my opinion but I
>> don't see how anyone can see it any other way.
>>
>
> But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the surgeons
> should pay for the well-being of the janitorial staff.
Actually under a nationalised system both the surgeon and the janitor would
be paying into the same system that would treat both of them.
For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I still think
the nationlised health system (National Health Service) is a good thing in
my country. It gets a lot of bad press,but this is mainly from people who
don't realise what the alternative is.
> I agree, and I'd go even further and suggest that most Americans don't
> understand what any of these "-isms" actually mean. You've probably
> seen some of the tea-party protesters carrying signs proclaiming that
> ObamaCare is Communist standing right beside someone carrying a sign
> proclaiming that ObamaCare's supporters are Nazis! Btw, I don't think
> Americans are any different in their ignorance than any other national
> group.
I do agree, however the one difference is that many Americas appear to have
an almost obsessive fear of all forms of socialism without understanding
what it is. Most people in the UK probably couldn't tell you what it means
either, however most people are generally apathetic to the concept.
Morgan
> wrote:
>
>
>> Sounds like a plan. While I'm doing that would you mind staying
>> sober, electing (in the loosest, non-democratic, sense of the word)
>> a complete moron for president (twice) and making a fool of yourself
>> for the entire world.
>>
> like you. Tee-hee.
I quick scan of your previous posts show's that you aint English.
David Lamb
> David Lamb wrote:
>> Although I've heard people say in many circumstances you *must* sue
>> for huge malpractice claims to be able to pay for the additional
>> health care needed for long-term medical intervention when a doctor
>> screws up, however mildly.
>>
>
> Heh. Actually, that's covered by law. If they screw you up, they must
> fix you up - free.
Well, as usual, there are complications:
- There's "negligence" as in doctors screwing up, which is all I
mentioned, and which in theory at least is dealt with as you said
- There are decisions that most doctors would have made under the same
circumstances, where there is a negative outcome that wouldn't (or
likely wouldn't) have arisen from some other decision.
I think the American legal system, or at least the public, no longer
distinguishes between the two.
The specific situation I was thinking of is US obstetrical care, where
mothers of children with any kind of significant problem that has the
faintest chance of being attributed by the courts as the doctor's fault,
are told they have to sue or they'll be impoverished.
That's one sort of thing that ought to be covered by "insurance" rather
than malpractice claims. I'd like to believe it would be a lot less
expensive, though obviously the money has to come from *somewhere*.
JAB
> wrote:
>
>
>> I quick scan of your previous posts show's that you aint English.
>
> no Englishman says "you ain't", "ain't" is an Americanism.
Well if he was 100% sure looking through your posts he is now with this
comment ... well done indeed.
JAB
Oops *wasn't 100% sure* ...
Briarroot
> think that was the Founders' intent, it was always mildly sprained, but it's
> causing a lot of pain now that we need a government that works.
>
Or if we had politicians who actually believed in the primacy of our
Constitution.
I think we need a moratorium on new legislation - say about 20 years.
We've got too many damn laws right now, most of which were poorly
thought out and do more harm than good. Congress should concentrate
their efforts on fixing what they or their predecessors have done before
they attempt to saddle us with any new regulations. A wise man once
opined: "When there were 10 laws people respected them. Now there are
10,000 laws and people have lost respect for the very concept of law!"
--
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>> Morgan wrote:
>>> Kyle Haight wrote:
>>>> In article <MPG.253776522...@news.individual.net>,
>>>> Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>>> justifiable? I assume you mean this it's unfair for the well
>>> off to be subsidising the lower paid people in the country. I
>>> personally look at it the other way. How can it be morally
>>> justifiable that a working man/woman can't afford decent health
>>> care. Every job contributes to society, every job is important.
>>>
>>
>> While the above is undoubtedly true, I don't think judgment of an
>> individual's 'contribution to society' should be the basis for
>> assigning rights;
>
> You misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we should measure an
> individuals contribution to society and assign right accordingly. To be
> honest, reading what I wrote I don't see how you reached that concussion.
>
You said: "every job contributes to society, every job is important" as
if that were moral justification for a national health service. What
other meaning should I take from that?
>> 1) If health care is a right, then what about those requirements for
>> life that are more important, such as food, shelter and clothing?
>> Should those things be 'socialized' too?
>
> You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care bills
> and medical insurance. It's apples and oranges.
>
They are all in the class of "things necessary to sustain life." You're
separation of them is entirely artificial - based on cost. It's just as
I pointed out in another post: if health care in America were not so
expensive, we would not be having this debate! It's not health care
that's the problem, it's *cost*
> If someone is in a low
> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical bills
> are another matter.
>
Irrelevant.
>>> A surgeon is a highly trained professional who has worked hard and
>>> invested a considerable few years of his life to qualify. It's fair
>>> that he should be paid more than someone who left school at the first
>>> opportunity. However if the hospital isn't kept clean by the far
>>> lower paid cleaning staff then quite a few of the patients are most
>>> likely going to catch infections and die. Both jobs are important,
>>> both people are entitled to good quality of life, access to basic
>>> medical care should be part of that. This is just my opinion but I
>>> don't see how anyone can see it any other way.
>>>
>>
>> But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the surgeons
>> should pay for the well-being of the janitorial staff.
>
> Actually under a nationalised system both the surgeon and the janitor
> would be paying into the same system that would treat both of them.
>
You're evading the question, which is: Is it morally justifiable to
*force* individuals to perform acts of charity?
> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I still
> think the nationlised health system (National Health Service) is a good
> thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad press,but this is mainly from
> people who don't realise what the alternative is.
>
The alternative is freedom. If you want to be free, then you must be
willing to accept the consequences of your own decisions, even if those
decisions are poor one. The difference between rich and poor is one of
education and training; one result of freedom.
I think a national health system would be another crack in the
Constitution and the beginning of the end of personal liberty. My
health, my *person* does not belong to the state. As I see it, that
will be the inevitable outcome of a mandatory national health service.
Hell, we're there already! Congress shouldn't even be *contemplating* a
mandatory system if they had any respect for liberty and the
Constitution. Bah! :-(
Briarroot
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:21:08 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Briarroot
> wrote:
>
>> Is health care a right or is it a privilege, and if the former, who pays?
>
> others, and while the responsibility to "promote the _general_ welfare" is
> indeed tasked to the government, it is conjoined with the responsibility of the
> individual to promote his or her own welfare and self-interest.
>
Um... okay. If I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that
responsibility is concomitant with liberty; and *that* I fully agree is
an important and often overlooked point. I prefer to call health care a
privilege, to be purchased in kind and quantity as preferred and can be
afforded; just like houses, cars, etc, but as many people see it as a
necessity, that may be stretching the point.
> Thus we, in our own way through our own ability, also promote the general
> welfare. Both liberal and socialist doctrines agree on that matter, but
> disagree on the division of those responsibilities, and whom should be allowed
> to control the fruits of industry that result from such responsible actions.
>
I find that a little confusing.
> On that matter, I will say simply that in cases where individual *ability* is
> interfered with, the general welfare will always suffer. Last time I read the
> Constitution, our government was also tasked to "secure the Blessings of
> Liberty." That thought amuses me when I'm drunk. ;^)
>
The "general welfare" clause can be cited as a reason for almost
anything. It's important to remember however, that the Constitution is
really a series of *constraints* on Federal power, not an open
invitation to do anything they can get away with. As James Madison put
it: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always
regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis
of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was
not contemplated by its creators." Since he was one of the principal
*authors* of the Constitution (& later President himself), I think his
appreciation is the only correct one.
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>>> Although I've heard people say in many circumstances you *must* sue
>>> for huge malpractice claims to be able to pay for the additional
>>> health care needed for long-term medical intervention when a doctor
>>> screws up, however mildly.
>>>
>>
>> Heh. Actually, that's covered by law. If they screw you up, they
>> must fix you up - free.
>
> Well, as usual, there are complications:
> - There's "negligence" as in doctors screwing up, which is all I
> mentioned, and which in theory at least is dealt with as you said
> - There are decisions that most doctors would have made under the same
> circumstances, where there is a negative outcome that wouldn't (or
> likely wouldn't) have arisen from some other decision.
>
> I think the American legal system, or at least the public, no longer
> distinguishes between the two.
>
> The specific situation I was thinking of is US obstetrical care, where
> mothers of children with any kind of significant problem that has the
> faintest chance of being attributed by the courts as the doctor's fault,
> are told they have to sue or they'll be impoverished.
>
Impoverished, meaning their child will require special (expensive) care
throughout his life?
> That's one sort of thing that ought to be covered by "insurance" rather
> than malpractice claims. I'd like to believe it would be a lot less
> expensive, though obviously the money has to come from *somewhere*.
>
That's why private charities were created.
I wish the people who are so hell-bent on establishing *government*
charity would instead expend their energies working for, or creating
their own, private charities. In my opinion, the drive to get
government to do what they feel needs doing for their fellow citizens in
need is actually an attempt to dump their responsibilities. "Let the
government do it, I'm too busy." (or tired, or poor, or even rich <g>)
Briarroot
In war-historical he claimed he was Canadian.
Of course, he could be lying about that as well! ;-)
JAB
>
>
>> Well if he was 100% sure looking through your posts he is now with this
>> comment ... well done indeed.
>
> a Brit would know that slang word. Besides, I love steak and kidney
> pie.
'I could say the same about you because no Englishman says "you ain't",'
You are, as a Englishman would say, some what of a wanker ...
JAB
> Morgan wrote:
>> Antonio L�pez de Santa Anna wrote:
>>>
>>> This will come as a great shock to you...I'm actually English just
>>> like you. Tee-hee.
>>
>> I quick scan of your previous posts show's that you aint English.
>
> In war-historical he claimed he was Canadian.
>
> Of course, he could be lying about that as well! ;-)
>
You think?
Morgan
> Morgan wrote:
>> You misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we should measure an
>> individuals contribution to society and assign right accordingly. To
>> be honest, reading what I wrote I don't see how you reached that
>> concussion.
>
> You said: "every job contributes to society, every job is important"
> as if that were moral justification for a national health service. What
> other meaning should I take from that?
To be quite honest, the face that "every job contributes to society," and
"every job is important" not we should attempt to measure the extent to
which a job contributes to society. These are very different concepts.
>> You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care
>> bills and medical insurance. It's apples and oranges.
>>
>
> They are all in the class of "things necessary to sustain life." You're
> separation of them is entirely artificial -
No, it's entirely practical and realistic.
>> If someone is in a low
>> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical bills
>> are another matter.
>>
>
> Irrelevant.
To you perhaps. Not to people who are struggling to afford health
insurance/medicals bills.
>> Actually under a nationalised system both the surgeon and the janitor
>> would be paying into the same system that would treat both of them.
>>
>
> You're evading the question,
No, I'm correcting your misunderstanding of a nationalised system.
> which is: Is it morally justifiable to
> *force* individuals to perform acts of charity?
By your logic taxes are also "acts of charity." Do you believe that the
police and fire services should also be privatised and require people to pay
for their use, or have insurance incase the worst happens? After all a high
paid individual pays more tax than a lower paid person.
>> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I still
>> think the nationlised health system (National Health Service) is a
>> good thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad press,but this is
>> mainly from people who don't realise what the alternative is.
>>
>
> The alternative is freedom.
Freedom is never absolute without anarchy.
> If you want to be free, then you must be
> willing to accept the consequences of your own decisions, even if
> those decisions are poor one. The difference between rich and poor
> is one of education and training; one result of freedom.
Education that more often than not takes place in state owned schools that
people are forced to pay for via tax money. Don't get me wrong I think it's
a good thing. It does however seem to contradict your point of view.
Also I would add that not everyone is capable of achieving at school no
matter how good the education offered is. We were not all created equal.
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>> Morgan wrote:
>
>>> You misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we should measure an
>>> individuals contribution to society and assign right accordingly. To
>>> be honest, reading what I wrote I don't see how you reached that
>>> concussion.
>>
>> You said: "every job contributes to society, every job is important"
>> as if that were moral justification for a national health service. What
>> other meaning should I take from that?
>
> To be quite honest, the face that "every job contributes to society,"
> and "every job is important" not we should attempt to measure the
> extent to which a job contributes to society. These are very different
> concepts.
>
<scratches head in perplexity> Would you care to repeat that?
>>> You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care
>>> bills and medical insurance. It's apples and oranges.
>>>
>>
>> They are all in the class of "things necessary to sustain life." You're
>> separation of them is entirely artificial -
>
> No, it's entirely practical and realistic.
>
Nonsense!
Do you agree or not that American is considering "health care reform"
*only* because it is so expensive?
>>> If someone is in a low
>>> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical bills
>>> are another matter.
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> To you perhaps. Not to people who are struggling to afford health
> insurance/medicals bills.
>
<sighs heavily> The *point* is that if medical care were cheaper, which
I claim it could be if it were not for the system which our inept
government has already created, then very few people *would* be
struggling to afford health care, and those that were could easily be
aided by private charity. Governments exist to amass, control and exert
*force* - and it's precisely *because* of their nature that they should
be confined to those ends.
>>> Actually under a nationalised system both the surgeon and the janitor
>>> would be paying into the same system that would treat both of them.
>>>
>>
>> You're evading the question,
>
> No, I'm correcting your misunderstanding of a nationalised system.
>
<laughter> Oh! So *that's* what you're doing!
>> which is: Is it morally justifiable to
>> *force* individuals to perform acts of charity?
>
> By your logic taxes are also "acts of charity." Do you believe that the
> police and fire services should also be privatised and require people to
> pay for their use, or have insurance incase the worst happens? After
> all a high paid individual pays more tax than a lower paid person.
>
Public order, being necessary to maintain a just and orderly society,
free citizens may empower agencies like police, but that is in no way
comparable to charity. Fire protection is a public service, much like
garbage collection or water/sewer connection, and could easily be
undertaken by private enterprise (and still is in some areas)
I think you're confused.
>>> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I still
>>> think the nationlised health system (National Health Service) is a
>>> good thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad press,but this is
>>> mainly from people who don't realise what the alternative is.
>>>
>>
>> The alternative is freedom.
>
> Freedom is never absolute without anarchy.
>
<laughter> Yeah, whew! Thanks for that. Now let's get back to talking
about the Federal government trying to force me to insure *my* body, and
how that is a perversion of the Constitution - or not, if you please.
>> If you want to be free, then you must be
>> willing to accept the consequences of your own decisions, even if
>> those decisions are poor one. The difference between rich and poor
>> is one of education and training; one result of freedom.
>
> Education that more often than not takes place in state owned schools
> that people are forced to pay for via tax money. Don't get me wrong I
> think it's a good thing. It does however seem to contradict your point
> of view.
>
And educated populace is a Good Thing, I think the moral error is that
education is *forced* upon the citizens. You're straying off course
here, but since you brought up public education, let's look at it for a
moment. You seem to be aware the public education does not compare in
quality with private education, despite the hundreds of billions of tax
dollars that public education has swallowed up in the past 50 years, and
now you say you want to turn over the practice of *medicine* to the very
same set of fools? You gotta be kiddin me!
> Also I would add that not everyone is capable of achieving at school no
> matter how good the education offered is. We were not all created equal.
>
Bingo! No legislative effort will ever *make* us equal; in fact, the
effort is immoral. That's been a central theme of mine for years.
Ergo, a national health service will *not* succeed in providing equal
health care to all, it is in reality just another form of stealing from
the 'rich' in order to buy political support. It's immoral, it's
unethical and it's unconstitutional!
--
"The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist
ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it
becomes, necessarily, the supreme rule." - Friedrich August von Hayek
Briarroot
I try. ;-)
Morgan
> Morgan wrote:
>>> You said: "every job contributes to society, every job is important"
>>> as if that were moral justification for a national health service.
>>> What other meaning should I take from that?
>>
>> To be quite honest, the face that "every job contributes to society,"
>> and "every job is important" not we should attempt to measure the
>> extent to which a job contributes to society. These are very
>> different concepts.
>>
>
> <scratches head in perplexity> Would you care to repeat that?
I meant to type fact, not face. Beyond that, just read it again.
>>>> You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care
>>>> bills and medical insurance. It's apples and oranges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are all in the class of "things necessary to sustain life."
>>> You're separation of them is entirely artificial -
>>
>> No, it's entirely practical and realistic.
>>
>
> Nonsense!
I think this is your lack of understanding, not mine.
> Do you agree or not that American is considering "health care reform"
> *only* because it is so expensive?
I's assume that that is a major factor but that it's not as simple as you
think it is.
>>>> If someone is in a low
>>>> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical
>>>> bills are another matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> To you perhaps. Not to people who are struggling to afford health
>> insurance/medicals bills.
>>
>
> <sighs heavily> The *point* is that if medical care were cheaper,
> which I claim it could be if it were not for the system which our
> inept government has already created, then very few people *would* be
> struggling to afford health care,
The reasons are academic. This is no help to the people who are living with
the reality.
>
>>>> Actually under a nationalised system both the surgeon and the
>>>> janitor would be paying into the same system that would treat both
>>>> of them.
>>>
>>> You're evading the question,
>>
>> No, I'm correcting your misunderstanding of a nationalised system.
>>
>
> <laughter> Oh! So *that's* what you're doing!
Yep.
>>> which is: Is it morally justifiable to
>>> *force* individuals to perform acts of charity?
>>
>> By your logic taxes are also "acts of charity." Do you believe that
>> the police and fire services should also be privatised and require
>> people to pay for their use, or have insurance incase the worst
>> happens? After all a high paid individual pays more tax than a
>> lower paid person.
>
> Public order, being necessary to maintain a just and orderly society,
> free citizens may empower agencies like police, but that is in no way
> comparable to charity. Fire protection is a public service, much like
> garbage collection or water/sewer connection, and could easily be
> undertaken by private enterprise (and still is in some areas)
>
> I think you're confused.
Not at all. I simply believe that some things should not be trusted to
companies that's primary goal is to turn a profit. I'd put police, fire
services, refuse collection and health care in this category. If you think
I'm wrong then that's you're opinion. However, in my opinion referring to a
National Helth Services as forced charity show's a lack of understanding of
how it works.
>>>> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I
>>>> still think the nationlised health system (National Health
>>>> Service) is a good thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad
>>>> press,but this is mainly from people who don't realise what the
>>>> alternative is.
>>>
>>> The alternative is freedom.
>>
>> Freedom is never absolute without anarchy.
>>
>
> <laughter> Yeah, whew! Thanks for that. Now let's get back to
> talking about the Federal government trying to force me to insure
> *my* body, and how that is a perversion of the Constitution - or not,
> if you please.
The US constitution is over 200 years old. Do you not think that blindly
sticking to it is,well lets face it, moronic.
>> Education that more often than not takes place in state owned schools
>> that people are forced to pay for via tax money. Don't get me wrong I
>> think it's a good thing. It does however seem to contradict your
>> point of view.
>>
>
> And educated populace is a Good Thing, I think the moral error is that
> education is *forced* upon the citizens. You're straying off course
> here, but since you brought up public education, let's look at it for
> a moment. You seem to be aware the public education does not compare
> in quality with private education,
You can't judge the quality of an education system simply on it's output.
You need to look at it's input along with other very important factors. The
three major factors that allow a child to achieve in-line with their ability
are: Quality of teaching, attitude of the child, parental support. The
latter two are seldom lacking in private education.
>> Also I would add that not everyone is capable of achieving at school
>> no matter how good the education offered is. We were not all
>> created equal.
>
> Bingo! No legislative effort will ever *make* us equal; in fact, the
> effort is immoral.
No it's not. Making us equal and treating us equally are two very different
things. Read bit of social history, and don't limit it to your own country,
you're too young.
Morgan
>> this comment ... well done indeed.
>
> a Brit would know that slang word. Besides, I love steak and kidney
> pie.
That's a gypsy word. BTW way are you paying a US company to Usenet access?
Briarroot
> Briarroot wrote:
>> Morgan wrote:
>>>> You said: "every job contributes to society, every job is important"
>>>> as if that were moral justification for a national health service.
>>>> What other meaning should I take from that?
>>>
>>> To be quite honest, the face that "every job contributes to society,"
>>> and "every job is important" not we should attempt to measure the
>>> extent to which a job contributes to society. These are very
>>> different concepts.
>>>
>>
>> <scratches head in perplexity> Would you care to repeat that?
>
> I meant to type fact, not face. Beyond that, just read it again.
>
Yeah, I spotted that, but what you said is still irrelevant in the
context of this discussion. We are talking about forcibly removing
money from the surgeon's wallet and giving it to the janitor. You claim
there is some moral justification for such an act while I claim there is
not. You cited their jobs in terms of "contribution to society" (both
being necessary) as some sort of ethical rationale for your position.
I'm saying that's nonsense.
>>>>> You can't really compare food, clothing ect to large health care
>>>>> bills and medical insurance. It's apples and oranges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are all in the class of "things necessary to sustain life."
>>>> You're separation of them is entirely artificial -
>>>
>>> No, it's entirely practical and realistic.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense!
>
> I think this is your lack of understanding, not mine.
>
You said it yourself, people are "struggling to afford health
insurance/medical bills." They are not struggling to afford food. It's
the public perception that medical costs are excessive and/or out of
control, that is the driving force behind this issue, not the uninsured
or the poor. Note that Obama has never once, not during his campaign or
since assuming office, mentioned "the poor." That's because he knows
that the real discontent lies with the middle class, who are not
un-coincidentally also the largest voting block. The middle class isn't
troubled be the *availability* of health care, but by the steeply rising
costs!
>> Do you agree or not that American is considering "health care reform"
>> *only* because it is so expensive?
>
> I's assume that that is a major factor but that it's not as simple as
> you think it is.
>
Where have you been for the last 50 years? It's not the 'equality' of
health care or any such crap that's at stake here, everyone already
understands that the rich *always* live better than the poor. Any talk
of helping "the uninsured" is just political legerdemain; most of those
without health insurance don't want it (myself, for example) and most
people who have insurance already are quite satisfied with it. It's
only the high *costs* that have brought this issue to a boil. For the
politicians, though they may *say* otherwise, this is about the
opportunity to extend their power. What you and I should be worrying
about is the further loss of our liberty, for every time that a free
citizenry has asked their government to do something *for* them, they
have unwittingly empowered that government to do something *to* them. A
national healthcare system would mean the inevitable further erosion of
our traditional guarantees of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness. We do not derive our rights *from* government, we erected
our government to preserve those rights which we claim are inherent in
our very being.
>>>>> If someone is in a low
>>>>> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical
>>>>> bills are another matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> To you perhaps. Not to people who are struggling to afford health
>>> insurance/medicals bills.
>>>
>>
>> <sighs heavily> The *point* is that if medical care were cheaper,
>> which I claim it could be if it were not for the system which our
>> inept government has already created, then very few people *would* be
>> struggling to afford health care,
>
> The reasons are academic. This is no help to the people who are living
> with the reality.
>
LMAO! *Reality* is what I'm talking about. It's you who are living in
cloud-cuckoo-land if you think any of the proposals currently being
debated in Congress will bring costs down. It seems patently obvious to
anyone who *isn't* a partisan hack that every single one of these
schemes will have the reverse effect!
<chuckle> What is shows is that I direct my attention on the act itself
and not some euphemistic title. Taxing the rich to benefit the poor is
nothing more complicated than theft; you can *call* it anything you like
but that won't change what it actually is.
>>>>> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I
>>>>> still think the nationlised health system (National Health
>>>>> Service) is a good thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad
>>>>> press,but this is mainly from people who don't realise what the
>>>>> alternative is.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative is freedom.
>>>
>>> Freedom is never absolute without anarchy.
>>>
>>
>> <laughter> Yeah, whew! Thanks for that. Now let's get back to
>> talking about the Federal government trying to force me to insure
>> *my* body, and how that is a perversion of the Constitution - or not,
>> if you please.
>
> The US constitution is over 200 years old. Do you not think that blindly
> sticking to it is,well lets face it, moronic.
>
1) I do *not* think that "sticking to" the Constitution is moronic.
2) I *do* think the principles embodied in the Constitution will never
become outmoded by age. That's why we call 'em "principles" ya see.
>>> Education that more often than not takes place in state owned schools
>>> that people are forced to pay for via tax money. Don't get me wrong I
>>> think it's a good thing. It does however seem to contradict your
>>> point of view.
>>>
>>
>> And educated populace is a Good Thing, I think the moral error is that
>> education is *forced* upon the citizens. You're straying off course
>> here, but since you brought up public education, let's look at it for
>> a moment. You seem to be aware the public education does not compare
>> in quality with private education,
>
> You can't judge the quality of an education system simply on it's
> output.
>
Oh really???
> You need to look at it's input along with other very important
> factors. The three major factors that allow a child to achieve in-line
> with their ability are: Quality of teaching, attitude of the child,
> parental support. The latter two are seldom lacking in private education.
>
It's obvious that the parents of private school students care about the
quality of their children's education and that they have made a judgment
about the quality of private-versus-public school teaching. Since most
of them pay taxes to support public schools and have opted to pay extra
to send their kids to private schools, what they think about public
schooling is crystal clear- they think it sucks! Public medicine would
inevitably repeat this result.
>>> Also I would add that not everyone is capable of achieving at school
>>> no matter how good the education offered is. We were not all
>>> created equal.
>>
>> Bingo! No legislative effort will ever *make* us equal; in fact, the
>> effort is immoral.
>
> No it's not. Making us equal and treating us equally are two very
> different things. Read bit of social history, and don't limit it to
> your own country, you're too young.
>
<laughter> You either missed the point entirely or you misread what was
written. "Making everyone equal" is *not* the same thing as "treating
everyone equally under the law," in fact it's quite often the reverse.
Affirmative Action being a prime example.
You're making the same mistake in your advocacy for a national
healthcare system. The majority may gang up on the minority (the top
20% in income are *already* paying 91% of the income tax) and hang fancy
names on what they're doing, but looking behind the curtain reveals
their duplicity. There is no moral justification for what is occurring
- period.
--
�Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On
the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed
beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.� - Frederic
Bastiat
Morgan
>
> Yeah, I spotted that, but what you said is still irrelevant in the
> context of this discussion. We are talking about forcibly removing
> money from the surgeon's wallet and giving it to the janitor. You
> claim there is some moral justification for such an act while I claim
> there is not. You cited their jobs in terms of "contribution to
> society" (both being necessary) as some sort of ethical rationale for
> your position. I'm saying that's nonsense.
That not actuly what you originally replied to that particular comment.
> You said it yourself, people are "struggling to afford health
> insurance/medical bills." They are not struggling to afford food. It's
> the public perception that medical costs are excessive and/or
> out of control, that is the driving force behind this issue, not the
> uninsured or the poor.
Again, you seem to have changed your stance on a particular point. You said
that food and medical bills are comparable. I'm saying that they aren't.
>
>>> Do you agree or not that American is considering "health care
>>> reform" *only* because it is so expensive?
>>
>> I's assume that that is a major factor but that it's not as simple as
>> you think it is.
>>
>
> Where have you been for the last 50 years?
In England. Being occasionaly treated by the NHS.
> It's not the 'equality'
> of health care or any such crap that's at stake here, everyone already
> understands that the rich *always* live better than the poor. Any
> talk of helping "the uninsured" is just political legerdemain; most
> of those without health insurance don't want it (myself, for example)
> and most people who have insurance already are quite satisfied with
> it. It's only the high *costs* that have brought this issue to a
> boil. For the politicians, though they may *say* otherwise, this is
> about the opportunity to extend their power. What you and I should
> be worrying about is the further loss of our liberty, for every time
> that a free citizenry has asked their government to do something
> *for* them, they have unwittingly empowered that government to do
> something *to* them.
As a casual observer I'd say you should be more worried about the patriot
act than a nationalised public health service if it's the reduction or you
liberty that concerns you.
>>>>>> If someone is in a low
>>>>>> paid job they're going to be able to afford food. Large medical
>>>>>> bills are another matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> To you perhaps. Not to people who are struggling to afford health
>>>> insurance/medicals bills.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <sighs heavily> The *point* is that if medical care were cheaper,
>>> which I claim it could be if it were not for the system which our
>>> inept government has already created, then very few people *would*
>>> be struggling to afford health care,
>>
>> The reasons are academic. This is no help to the people who are
>> living with the reality.
>>
>
> LMAO! *Reality* is what I'm talking about. It's you who are living
> in cloud-cuckoo-land if you think any of the proposals currently being
> debated in Congress will bring costs down. It seems patently obvious
> to anyone who *isn't* a partisan hack that every single one of these
> schemes will have the reverse effect!
Fro a second take a step back. I'm not arguing in favour of what the current
US administration is proposing. I'm arguning in favaour of the concept of a
nationalised health service.
>> Not at all. I simply believe that some things should not be trusted
>> to companies that's primary goal is to turn a profit. I'd put
>> police, fire services, refuse collection and health care in this
>> category. If you think I'm wrong then that's you're opinion. However, in
>> my opinion referring to a National Helth Services as
>> forced charity show's a lack of understanding of how it works.
>>
>
> <chuckle> What is shows is that I direct my attention on the act
> itself and not some euphemistic title. Taxing the rich to benefit
> the poor is nothing more complicated than theft; you can *call* it
> anything you like but that won't change what it actually is.
Taxing *everyone* to benefit *everyone.* Drop this idea that the wealthy
are being penelised. They would pay more yes, but they earn more. I pay
more into the NHS now than I did 5 years ago because I earn more than I did
5 years ago.
>>>>>> For the record I'm an IT graduate and am reasonably well off, I
>>>>>> still think the nationlised health system (National Health
>>>>>> Service) is a good thing in my country. It gets a lot of bad
>>>>>> press,but this is mainly from people who don't realise what the
>>>>>> alternative is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The alternative is freedom.
>>>>
>>>> Freedom is never absolute without anarchy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <laughter> Yeah, whew! Thanks for that. Now let's get back to
>>> talking about the Federal government trying to force me to insure
>>> *my* body, and how that is a perversion of the Constitution - or
>>> not, if you please.
>>
>> The US constitution is over 200 years old. Do you not think that
>> blindly sticking to it is,well lets face it, moronic.
>>
>
> 1) I do *not* think that "sticking to" the Constitution is moronic.
*Blindly* sticking to.
> 2) I *do* think the principles embodied in the Constitution will never
> become outmoded by age. That's why we call 'em "principles" ya see.
Priciples are subjective to start with.
>>>> Education that more often than not takes place in state owned
>>>> schools that people are forced to pay for via tax money. Don't get
>>>> me wrong I think it's a good thing. It does however seem to
>>>> contradict your point of view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And educated populace is a Good Thing, I think the moral error is
>>> that education is *forced* upon the citizens. You're straying off
>>> course here, but since you brought up public education, let's look
>>> at it for a moment. You seem to be aware the public education does
>>> not compare in quality with private education,
>>
>> You can't judge the quality of an education system simply on it's
>> output.
>>
>
> Oh really???
Yes.
>> You need to look at it's input along with other very important
>> factors. The three major factors that allow a child to achieve
>> in-line with their ability are: Quality of teaching, attitude of the
>> child, parental support. The latter two are seldom lacking in
>> private education.
>
> It's obvious that the parents of private school students care about
> the quality of their children's education and that they have made a
> judgment about the quality of private-versus-public school teaching. Since
> most of them pay taxes to support public schools and have opted
> to pay extra to send their kids to private schools, what they think
> about public schooling is crystal clear- they think it sucks! Public
> medicine would inevitably repeat this result.
And? It would still serve it's purpose.
>>>> Also I would add that not everyone is capable of achieving at
>>>> school no matter how good the education offered is. We were not
>>>> all created equal.
>>>
>>> Bingo! No legislative effort will ever *make* us equal; in fact,
>>> the effort is immoral.
>>
>> No it's not. Making us equal and treating us equally are two very
>> different things. Read bit of social history, and don't limit it to
>> your own country, you're too young.
>>
>
> <laughter> You either missed the point entirely or you misread what
> was written. "Making everyone equal" is *not* the same thing as
> "treating everyone equally under the law," in fact it's quite often
> the reverse.
You pretty much just repeated what I wrote.
> Affirmative Action being a prime example.
>
> You're making the same mistake in your advocacy for a national
> healthcare system. The majority may gang up on the minority (the top
> 20% in income are *already* paying 91% of the income tax) and hang
> fancy names on what they're doing, but looking behind the curtain
> reveals their duplicity. There is no moral justification for what is
> occurring - period.
That is your opinion. My opinion differs. My *principles* (see told you
they were subjective) differ.
Kyle Haight
Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>
>You do know the USSR is no longer, dontcha Kyle...? ;-p
Yes. What relevance does that have to what I said?
>Read what he said again. He said that's what the majority of the dimwits who
>voted him into power probably think, not what *he* thinks of Ronnie.
I understand that. Read what *I* wrote again. I'm saying that if he
thinks that (votes from people who couldn't tell the difference between
an actor and his roles) is the source of Reagan's political success,
he's simply displaying his ignorance.
Which role of Reagan's, specifically, are people supposed to have been
voting into office on that premise, anyhow?
>I'm sure there are a few of you yanks who had very compelling & rational
>reasons for voting Reagan or Bush, for example, into power...at the
>time. >8^D
I didn't vote for either of them. Too young for Reagan, too disgusted
by HW Bush.
>Now, who's your favourite pres of all time Mr H?
Knee-jerk reaction? James Monroe, mostly on the basis of the Monroe
Doctrine. Least favorite president is a toss-up between Woodrow Wilson
and Theodore Roosevelt, leaning towards Roosevelt.
--
Kyle Haight
Kyle Haight
Morgan <Nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Morally justifiable? I assume you mean this it's unfair for the well off to
The moral principle on which you are implicitly relying is that one person's
need constitutes a claim on the life of another person. I think that
moral principle is wrong.
>How can it be morally justifiable that a working man/woman can't afford
>decent health care.
Health care is a product. It is created by the thought and effort of
specific individuals -- doctors, nurses, medical technology researchers,
pharmaceutical companies, etc. If need creates an entitlement to
that product, it creates an entitlement to that thought and effort, i.e.
it means the people who actuall create health care are *not* entitled to
control their own lives. Their lives are the property of anyone who
has a need for the values they can create.
That's slavery. Slavery is immoral.
Lest you think that's an exaggeration, let me point out that when Belgium
nationalized their health care system back in the 1960's many doctors
started leaving the country for freer pastures. The Belgian government
responded by *drafting doctors into the Army and forcing them to provide
medical care*. A clearer illustration of what the so-called 'right
to health care' means could scarcely be imagined.
>Every job contributes to society, every job is important.
Hit man? Politician?
>I think the problem is that a lot of Americans (and feel free to correct me
>here) simply don't understand that the word socialism is a very broad term
>that covers a lot of different political ideals. A lot of Americans seem to
>think that socialism means communism and that's the end of it. Therefore
>anything socialist is bad.
My beef with 'socialism' isn't fundamentally political, it's moral.
--
Kyle Haight