[Winstonm]

Does anyone deny that healthcare and national security are equally necessary? Why is it that national security is a single-payer system and that is good but suggesting healthcare as a single-payer is bad?

Why is it that free-market advocates seem never to discuss those past excesses of greed and inequality that businesses reveled in in totally unregulated markets of the past?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 14:40, said:

Why is it that national security is a single-payer system and that is good but suggesting healthcare as a single-payer is bad?

Because healthcare can be obtained individually in an open market. Whereas national security is necessarily collective by its nature. It's a big difference, and not really a good comparison IMO.

This does not, of course, prove that single-payer healthcare is bad (which I do not think it is). But free market security clearly won't work.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 14:40, said:

Does anyone deny that healthcare and national security are equally necessary? Why is it that national security is a single-payer system and that is good but suggesting healthcare as a single-payer is bad?

Why is it that free-market advocates seem never to discuss those past excesses of greed and inequality that businesses reveled in in totally unregulated markets of the past?

I think any rational person would deny that national security and healthcare are equally necessary, first of all.

Second, as billw55 said, completely free market national security would be a bad idea. Somewhat unruly. The best example of free market national security would be terrorist organizations. But, limited "free market national security" already exists. In fact, national security is not completely on a single payer system in the United States.

As to the last point, one could argue that single-payer advocates seem never to discuss those past excesses of greed and inequality that governments reveled in in totally regulated markets of the past.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-05, 14:56, said:

I think any rational person would deny that national security and healthcare are equally necessary, first of all.

Second, as billw55 said, completely free market national security would be a bad idea. Somewhat unruly. The best example of free market national security would be terrorist organizations. But, limited "free market national security" already exists. In fact, national security is not completely on a single payer system in the United States.

As to the last point, one could argue that single-payer advocates seem never to discuss those past excesses of greed and inequality that governments reveled in in totally regulated markets of the past.

I'm sorry, but who, other than the government, pays for national security?

Yes, governments in the past have overreached in greed and inequality - such actions brought about the French Revolution.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 15:24, said:

I'm sorry, but who, other than the government, pays for national security?

Yes, governments in the past have overreached in greed and inequality - such actions brought about the French Revolution.

Are you unaware of private security companies in foreign fields of war? These often protect national economic interests and Americans in other lands.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-05, 15:39, said:

Are you unaware of private security companies in foreign fields of war? These often protect national economic interests and Americans in other lands.

And who pays them? Sure, some companies may have there own private security overseas, but that is not national security. The private companies that were in Iraq during the war were paid by the government - a single payer.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 15:44, said:

And who pays them? Sure, some companies may have there own private security overseas, but that is not national security. The private companies that were in Iraq during the war were paid by the government - a single payer.

I think your view is naive in teo different ways. Economics is more real national security in this world, and corporate interest is really funding war. We long abandoned any real people pursuit of war, let alone funding. And single payer war, Iif it exists, created the military industrial complex, which is far from your ideal I assume. Now you think we are as the people pursuing and funding health care and that ee can avoid an insurance government complex?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 15:24, said:

I'm sorry, but who, other than the government, pays for national security?

Yes, governments in the past have overreached in greed and inequality - such actions brought about the French Revolution.

Revolutions after the French were raised to the point of being a deity, a sacred deity. To be against a revolution is to be against the sacred. The French tried to combine a revolution for freedom with one for patriotism, a combination that failed. They also invented total mobilization of the population for war, another bad experiment.

It sort of sounds like NHS has been raised to just such a place where it is heresy and political death to go up against it.

[mike777]

dup

[kenberg]

There are not a great many things that I am sure of, but I am fairly confident that The French Revolution has nothing to do with Obamacare. Well, maybe this: Good ideas often fall apart because of bad implementation.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2013-November-05, 13:16, said:

Zel, thank you for the information.

" should also be mentioned that for all its faults the NHS remains incredibly popular. The idea of having an American-style model would be a nightmare for almost everyone and even suggesting it would be political suicide."


It is this most important point that you make that concerns me. It sounds like there is little appetite for risk taking, a culture of accepting risk taking, failure and creative destruction in the name of stability. This leads to a culture that inhibits innovation and one that does not encourage risk taking in the name of politics and stability. As you point out when NHS remains incredibly popular, large changes would be political suicide. It is a system that defends the status quo not one that is trying to compete and overthrow it.

What the hell are you trying to say? That a popular system should be overthrown -- because there is something inherently bad about the "status quo"? The status quo has been "overthrown" in recent times -- for instance right to buy and the privatisation of the railways. Both of these policies have had really terrible consequences. The introduction of the NHS upset the status quo hugely and has been a success.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2013-November-05, 16:29, said:

I think your view is naive in teo different ways. Economics is more real national security in this world, and corporate interest is really funding war. We long abandoned any real people pursuit of war, let alone funding. And single payer war, Iif it exists, created the military industrial complex, which is far from your ideal I assume. Now you think we are as the people pursuing and funding health care and that ee can avoid an insurance government complex?

What I grasp is that a single claim form eliminates a host of unnecessary and costly overhead expenses - I also understand that if national security were run like our old healthcare system we would be dependent on group anti-terrorist policies we get from work, and if one have ever been threatened by a terrorist the "preceding condition" clause kicks in to deny the claim, while the poor would just have to allow themselves to be blown apart waiting in line to get into the ER shelter where, if they are lucky, they might be protected just long enough to be able to walk back home, and then they'd be tossed back out to fend for themselves.

[FM75]

When you buy liability insurance for the privilege of operating an automobile, you may be charged based upon your actuarial risk factors in all 50 states and DC.

When you must buy health insurance for the privilege of living in the United States, ...

ok, if you are high risk, you can transfer that risk to someone who has low actuarial risk.

This does not seem like insurance at all. It should seem "fair" only to high risk buyers.

[mike777]

Innovation comes from taking risks and it results in the overthrow, the destruction of old systems. It sounds like there is great resistance to questioning, taking risks that result in innovation but also failures. I can understand that goes against the status quo in what is a very popular NHS program.

[Zelandakh]

Sounds a little like Communism, Mike. History is against you on this though. For example, destruction of the "old system" of the Roman Empire led to a reverse in innovation and advancement in Europe for 500 years or so. Perhaps you should suggest that the system used to elect US governments should be different every time, perhaps pulled out of a hat. Or have a new President/Senate/HoR/SC every month at random. Perhaps the ancient Athenians were onto something there - shame the system had to be overthrown.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-05, 22:40, said:

What I grasp is that a single claim form eliminates a host of unnecessary and costly overhead expenses - I also understand that if national security were run like our old healthcare system we would be dependent on group anti-terrorist policies we get from work, and if one have ever been threatened by a terrorist the "preceding condition" clause kicks in to deny the claim, while the poor would just have to allow themselves to be blown apart waiting in line to get into the ER shelter where, if they are lucky, they might be protected just long enough to be able to walk back home, and then they'd be tossed back out to fend for themselves.

Both amusing and inventive, but I trust you realize that the analogy is very strained. I get a disease, I go to a doctor, the issue is how to pay the bills for my individual treatment for an individual issue. It's true that we also have medical issues addressing large populations. Obesity, polio vaccination, proper disposal of hazardous wastes, that sort of thing. Much of this is done by government agencies. That's natural enough because, like terrorist or other military attacks, it is a national issue.

Anolgies often are, by their nature, distracting. We end up arguing over whether the analogy is apt or not. I think you will have a very tough time getting any traction with an analogy between national security and health care. Perhaps Syria could be seen as a patient with both a non-communicable disease, say heart problems, and a communicable disease, maybe HIV. So we have perhaps competing interests: Helping with the suffering, protecting against the spread. But even if the analogy sort of fits, and sort of doesn't, it offers no clue about our proper course of action.

Basically, security problems require one sort of thinking, health problems another, any analogy between them will be more symbolic than real.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-November-06, 08:46, said:

Both amusing and inventive, but I trust you realize that the analogy is very strained. I get a disease, I go to a doctor, the issue is how to pay the bills for my individual treatment for an individual issue. It's true that we also have medical issues addressing large populations. Obesity, polio vaccination, proper disposal of hazardous wastes, that sort of thing. Much of this is done by government agencies. That's natural enough because, like terrorist or other military attacks, it is a national issue.

Anolgies often are, by their nature, distracting. We end up arguing over whether the analogy is apt or not. I think you will have a very tough time getting any traction with an analogy between national security and health care. Perhaps Syria could be seen as a patient with both a non-communicable disease, say heart problems, and a communicable disease, maybe HIV. So we have perhaps competing interests: Helping with the suffering, protecting against the spread. But even if the analogy sort of fits, and sort of doesn't, it offers no clue about our proper course of action.

Basically, security problems require one sort of thinking, health problems another, any analogy between them will be more symbolic than real.

Ken,

Thanks. You are such a reasonable person, and it is a pleasure to have you in discussions. My only point in my analogy was one of payment - a single payer system is more efficient for concerns which should be of universal. What I hear a lot of, though, sounds to me like an expression of total self-serving ideology, that the poor deserve to be poor and do not deserve better health care - but this ideology goes unspoken as it is hidden inside a claim (which may be real to them) that government interference is the culprit and private enterprise is the solution, that it is really not about simple self-preoccupation.

Of course, this is only my opinion and my perceptions. Your mileage may vary.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2013-November-05, 23:44, said:

Innovation comes from taking risks and it results in the overthrow, the destruction of old systems. It sounds like there is great resistance to questioning, taking risks that result in innovation but also failures. I can understand that goes against the status quo in what is a very popular NHS program.

I don't understand what you are trying to say about the NHS. We should get rid of it in the name of innovation, but we are resistant since it is popular?

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-06, 09:43, said:

My only point in my analogy was one of payment - a single payer system is more efficient for concerns which should be of universal.

Quite. Insurance companies are some of the richest companies in the world. Limit the issue to health insurance -- if I am not wrong that is what an HMO is? Every penny they make is what they lift out of the hand of the patient as the latter is paying his doctor.