NHS In The Corridor

[amicus]

Oggbashan:

"...If that is the appropriate solution, and the Canadians' health service pays for it, what is wrong with that? I would be unhappy if I wanted emergency care and I was prevented from using the nearest facility because it was the other side of a political boundary..."

~~~

There is an organization, "Doctor's without Borders", or something akin to that and you remind me of that.

I don't understand the kind of world you foresee by stating, "the other side of a political boundary..." I was one of many who visited the Soviet border in East German on my way to visit the home town of Goethe, and I remember to this day, the steel blue eyes and machine gun the Russian guard casually pointed at me.

Actually I do understand your 'one world' concept, as if good and evil never existed in the world.

I also cannot fault you entirely for your ambivalence towards socialized medicine; it is all you have ever known. Quite like the girl kidnapped and held in captivity for 18 years, she had come to love her captor and did what she had to do to live without freedom.

It can be understood, but not easily, that when people who have lived a lifetime with no choice, are not sure that Liberation and freedom are a good thing. Even further, following world war two, how some Scandanavian countries did not appreciate the oportunity give by liberation and huddled back under big brother's wings.

I suspect our differences are beyond resolution.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box...I think the 'Maplethorp' era answered your question, yes, smut comes under the umbrella of the NEA.

(snip)
Amicus

You might be right, Ami. I wonder how I can get some of that loot.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe the controversy is centering on the wrong thing. I wonder if we shouldn't be questioning the real role of government. That is: Is it the job of government to be in any business, let alone the insurance business, or is it the role of government to set rules and standards then monitor the various industries to ensure compliance?

 

[amicus]

A wonderful suggestion Jenny...noticed the weather report this evening, the weekend will bring some autumn like weather with clouds, cooler temperatures and perhaps some Oregon drizzel.....I am just down the road a piece from you.

But...it would be re-inventing the wheel, as we have a Constitution that carefully limited the power of government in order to protect the life, liberty and property of the people.

The Constitution does not authorize 'regulating' the free enterprise between individuals or corporations, but it does provide a means, through property rights and fraud laws, by which business must be conducted within the laws.

It is a temptation, it seems, to surmise that the document, written so long ago, is not sufficient to deal with the changes that have occured since. I disagree and maintain that the function of government should still be limited to protecting the innate rights of the people.

In the face of the failure of so many experiments of 'big government', one would think to be wary of those who wish to expand the authority and power of the bureaucracy.

The impulse of the more intellectual among us, to control the masses to achieve social goals beneficial to all, seems to be a temptation few can resist.

The greatest value besides life, is to protect is that elusive freedom of choice in how we live our lives without infringing on the rights of others.

I don't look forward to winter, but my garden has indicated it is on its way.

All the best...

Amicus

 

[SimonBrooke]

Even when we signed an Entente Cordiale with France (and Russia) in the early twentieth century, the British War office still considered that war against France was more likely than war against Germany. After all the British Royal family and the German Imperial family were closely related. Even when World War 1 started the UK didn't go to war for France but for Belgium whose neutrality we had guaranteed.

It's worth pointing out that the Auld Alliance is not between the UK and France but between Scotland and France- and that's because it's an alliance primarily against a common enemy: England.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

What you say is true, Ami. But there is precident for government regulation and oversite. The Nuclear Industry, for example. The Auto emmissions standards for another.
From what I can tell I believe "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness" can be set asside in the case of the national welfare. So the question now becomes: Is Health Insurance Reform part of the National Welfare?

 

[john-the-author]

It's worth pointing out that the Auld Alliance is not between the UK and France but between Scotland and France- and that's because it's an alliance primarily against a common enemy: England.

I'm reminded of a theme in "Scotland, Bloody Scotland," a delightful history of Scotland by Frank Renwick, Baron of Ravenstone, that if the Scots could ever pull together instead of pulling down anyone who rose head and shoulders above the rest, they'd be much better off. His Excellency made a number of observations that there were a number of times when the Scots might've become independent from England, but they tend to sabotage the very people who would gladly lead them to success. Alas.

There was a similar comment in "Good Omens," about "The Scots, pausing in their centuries-long struggle against their mortal enemy, the Scots...."

 

[amicus]

There is a new generation of Americans every thirty some years, however a 'generation' is determined, and each holds the ability to change the society we live in.

There are times of great stress when basic rights are abridged, the Civil War was one such time. Conscription, drafting people into military service is another such abridgement that was considered a necessary violation of individual rights.

National disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, stress the system also, but I describe these as 'lifeboat ethics', how one deals with emergencies that threaten the society as a whole. A Pandemic would be another.

It is caring and compassionate to desire to provide adequate medical care for every citizen and I understand that. There are government funded programs to care for the mentally handicapped, volunteer charitable organizations go a long way to provide orphanages, food and clothing for the needy. I think the generosity of a people, freely given is a compliment to a society.

The problem arises when such needs are institutionalized are tax monies are used to hire people to provide services that are considered, 'needed' or for the welfare of the people.

We institutionalize the use of force for our police and military and that is within the powers granted to government by law.

The recent housing collapse was a result of governent programs designed to provide housing for low income families and the result was a disaster.

The actual 'Welfare Clause' in the Constitution seems to be interpreted differently with each change in the Supreme Court and how each 'interprets' the meaning.

Another problem with government provided services is that once started, they never end, in fact begin to grow out of proportion to the services supplied and become more beneficial to the public servants administering the programs than the citizens for whom they work.

Few seem willing to consider human values and self esteem when government programs are discussed, but I think it is essential to look closely. We each, upon reaching maturity, gain values only by working to achieve them on an individual basis. When services essentially become free, they lose their value and are misused and abused and corrupted by those who administer them.

Earning or achieving status or excellence or skills is an individual endeavor, something that one must accomplish by ones self; it cannot be bestowed or given.

Although our creed is that each is created equal, that means 'under the law', for indeed we are not equal at all. The IQ Bell curve illustrates that half the population is above average and half below, with a tiny percentage at each end. Some are born gifted with music or art or affinities for other skills, some are born with an 80 IQ are are virtually uneducatable beyond menial physical services.

I don't mean to bore you with this, but it is of such great importance that one realize the essential necessity of human dignity is freedom and the right to choose our own paths in life.

Even if a form of government based on, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need...' could possibly work, it would destroy that which makes us human; the unique individuality of each and every human.

Each year I grow a large garden because I enjoy doing it. I give away the produce without ever asking for a return.

Go figure...

Amicus

 

[SimonBrooke]

I'm reminded of a theme in "Scotland, Bloody Scotland," a delightful history of Scotland by Frank Renwick, Baron of Ravenstone, that if the Scots could ever pull together instead of pulling down anyone who rose head and shoulders above the rest, they'd be much better off. His Excellency made a number of observations that there were a number of times when the Scots might've become independent from England, but they tend to sabotage the very people who would gladly lead them to success. Alas.

There was a similar comment in "Good Omens," about "The Scots, pausing in their centuries-long struggle against their mortal enemy, the Scots...."

Oh, indeed, yes.

To quote the old Arab saying:

'me against my brother;
me and my brother against my cousin;
me and my brother and my cousin against my clan;
me and my brother and my cousin and my clan against the world'.

 

[Liar]

What you say is true, Ami. But there is precident for government regulation and oversite. The Nuclear Industry, for example. The Auto emmissions standards for another.
From what I can tell I believe "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness" can be set asside in the case of the national welfare. So the question now becomes: Is Health Insurance Reform part of the National Welfare?

I think the question is simpler than that.

Can National Welfare be said to strengthen the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness"? Does right to life also include duty to prevent each other from dying? Do you have a resposibility to care about anyone's liberty but your own? Is it the goverment's job to facilitate opportunities to pursuit happiness? (And if it doesn't is it then infinging on people's wight to pursue happiness, by allowing an environment where they can't?) That's the big divide between the ideologies, I think. Not whether rights can be set aside, but whether it's goverment's role to actively or passively grant them.

If I have the right to life, do I have the right to be protected from murderers?

 

[oggbashan]

Oggbashan:

~~~

There is an organization, "Doctor's without Borders", or something akin to that and you remind me of that.

I don't understand the kind of world you foresee by stating, "the other side of a political boundary..." I was one of many who visited the Soviet border in East German on my way to visit the home town of Goethe, and I remember to this day, the steel blue eyes and machine gun the Russian guard casually pointed at me.

Actually I do understand your 'one world' concept, as if good and evil never existed in the world.

I also cannot fault you entirely for your ambivalence towards socialized medicine; it is all you have ever known. Quite like the girl kidnapped and held in captivity for 18 years, she had come to love her captor and did what she had to do to live without freedom.

It can be understood, but not easily, that when people who have lived a lifetime with no choice, are not sure that Liberation and freedom are a good thing. Even further, following world war two, how some Scandanavian countries did not appreciate the oportunity give by liberation and huddled back under big brother's wings.

I suspect our differences are beyond resolution.

Amicus

Amicus,

It is a French organisations: Medicins Sans Frontieres. My daughter and her husband have done work for it at their own expense.

I too have seen borders manned by guards carrying loaded machine guns. I've crossed a few.

My one world concept? Europe is a virtually borderless state (except for the UK). Once across the Channel I can drive from France into Belgium and all that I notice is a road sign telling me I've left France.

I also cannot fault you entirely for your ambivalence towards socialized medicine; it is all you have ever known.

Sorry, Amicus. You obviously don't remember my posts. I was born before the NHS existed. I have lived, for years, in countries that don't have an NHS. I have experienced medical insurance wrangling over what is and what is not covered, about co-payment, and whether an emergency was a justifiable emergency or not. The rest of your post is therefore based on the wrong premise.

You don't listen, Amicus. You reply to what you THINK other people have said. You assume too much, for example that socialised medicine is all the UK has. I've said it before. We can choose. We can use the NHS. We can be covered by insurance and use private hospitals and doctors. We can pay directly if we want to. We can, as I do, belong to a mutual organisation that provides medical care as a benefit of membership. We can get medical insurance as part of the services provided by a bank account - that insurance covers me whenever I'm outside the UK including if I visit the US.

I know far more than just "socialised medicine". You only know your prejudices about it.

Og

 

[SimonBrooke]

You don't listen, Amicus...

I know far more than just "socialised medicine". You only know your prejudices about it.

Og, you are of course perfectly right, He isn't listening. His prejudices will not permit him to. He knows as a matter of faith that the market is always right. You are wasting your time, and really we'd all be better off if you put him on 'ignore'.

 

[3113]

You don't listen, Amicus. You reply to what you THINK other people have said.

Almost on the money, Og. Amicus replies to what he wants those who disagree with him to have said so that he can rant, preach and soapbox to to his heart's content. And thus maintain his self-image as the lone martyr of true facts and wisdom in a world of fools

It would really ruin that self-imagine to think that anyone who disagrees with him is knowledgeable and experienced and presenting valid facts and common sense equal to or greater than his own. That might mean that what you were saying (horrors!) might be right.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You might be right, Ami. I wonder how I can get some of that loot.

You'd have to produce art-quality smut.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I think the question is simpler than that.

Can National Welfare be said to strengthen the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness"? Does right to life also include duty to prevent each other from dying? Do you have a resposibility to care about anyone's liberty but your own? Is it the goverment's job to facilitate opportunities to pursuit happiness? (And if it doesn't is it then infinging on people's wight to pursue happiness, by allowing an environment where they can't?) That's the big divide between the ideologies, I think. Not whether rights can be set aside, but whether it's goverment's role to actively or passively grant them.

If I have the right to life, do I have the right to be protected from murderers?

"Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness" is in the Preamble to the Constitution, not a part of the Constitution itself. Show me one Artical or Ammendment to the Constititution that guarantees them.
The Bill of Rights were written to cover those lofty ideas, but I see no required action or anything that bars goverment from inducing or interferring with them.

 

[Liar]

"Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness" is in the Preamble to the Constitution, not a part of the Constitution itself. Show me one Artical or Ammendment to the Constititution that guarantees them.
The Bill of Rights were written to cover those lofty ideas, but I see no required action or anything that bars goverment from inducing or interferring with them.

True. I wasn't really talking about the document per se, but how differenty ideologies approach those "lofty ideals".

Because it seems to me like every side of the fence pretty adamantly subscribe to them, but have different ideas about what they actually, y'know, are. So they can comfortably berate the other side for being against "life liberty" et cetera, instead of having an actual debate about real stuff.

 

[Liar]

You'd have to produce art-quality smut.

Haqve you seen what passes as art lately?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

True. I wasn't really talking about the document per se, but how differenty ideologies approach those "lofty ideals".

Because it seems to me like every side of the fence pretty adamantly subscribe to them, but have different ideas about what they actually, y'know, are. So they can comfortably berate the other side for being against "life liberty" et cetera, instead of having an actual debate about real stuff.

True, Liar...
Who is on the two sides of the Health Reform Issue. I suspect those against it are in the majority, or so the CNN poll I saw this morning said. If that's true then Health Reform is being shoved down our thoats for our own good and that won't fly.
So far three presidents have given up the battle for Health Reform. Appearantly, Obama has his eyes and ears closed to the voting public.

 

[Liar]

True, Liar...
Who is on the two sides of the Health Reform Issue. I suspect those against it are in the majority, or so the CNN poll I saw this morning said. If that's true then Health Reform is being shoved down our thoats for our own good and that won't fly.
So far three presidents have given up the battle for Health Reform. Appearantly, Obama has his eyes and ears closed to the voting public.

Got to get a look at that poll and what was asked. From what I've seen, there's been a solid , sometimes overwhelming majority for reform, including public option in poll after poll. Of course, it's possible that have shifted over time. But I don't think it's conclusive to say what you say, and definitely not to draw those conclusions.

However, whatever the final bill is, it will be shoved down some people's throat. Because all will not love it and some will hate it with a passion. Such is the polarized landscape of US politics.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
You might be right, Ami. I wonder how I can get some of that loot.

You'd have to produce art-quality smut.

But, who decides what is art quality? I get some pretty good comments, and some put downs, just like any other artist.

 

[amicus]

Amicus,

It is a French organisations: Medicins Sans Frontieres. My daughter and her husband have done work for it at their own expense.

I too have seen borders manned by guards carrying loaded machine guns. I've crossed a few.

My one world concept? Europe is a virtually borderless state (except for the UK). Once across the Channel I can drive from France into Belgium and all that I notice is a road sign telling me I've left France.

I also cannot fault you entirely for your ambivalence towards socialized medicine; it is all you have ever known.

Sorry, Amicus. You obviously don't remember my posts. I was born before the NHS existed. I have lived, for years, in countries that don't have an NHS. I have experienced medical insurance wrangling over what is and what is not covered, about co-payment, and whether an emergency was a justifiable emergency or not. The rest of your post is therefore based on the wrong premise.

You don't listen, Amicus. You reply to what you THINK other people have said. You assume too much, for example that socialised medicine is all the UK has. I've said it before. We can choose. We can use the NHS. We can be covered by insurance and use private hospitals and doctors. We can pay directly if we want to. We can, as I do, belong to a mutual organisation that provides medical care as a benefit of membership. We can get medical insurance as part of the services provided by a bank account - that insurance covers me whenever I'm outside the UK including if I visit the US.

I know far more than just "socialised medicine". You only know your prejudices about it.

Og

~~~

Dear Oggbashan....I do listen, I do read, I do remember your posts and the content I address. That I do so is underlined by your lengthy and in depth rebuttals of my commentary, as you rise to the defense of your system.

Again, I do not fault you for that and I am thankful that the United States was spared from the horrific events of world war two, the extrme loss of life, property and occupation.

Trusting memory, you yourself stated that the NHS came into being in 1955. The majority of your population therefore, has known nothing but national health service their entire life, and you for the better part of yours.

You have stated before that you can go from Euro country to Euro country without passport or visa, which illustrates an affinity for a 'one nation' Europe and for a 'one world government'.

Your posts indicate that you are somewhat better off than the average Brit, thus it comes as no surprise that you can afford to avail yourself of medical care outside the NHS, most of your countrymen cannot.

It is a matter of reason and logic: if the government sets the standards for healthcare and supports it with taxes, then those medical facilities that function outside the government are limited and far more expensive than the 'free' NHS care.

You know quite well, as do other critics here, that I understand all to well from whence you and your philosophy came. You know too that my criticisms are much too close to home with the truth and factual veracity and you would prefer to ignore rather than address that criticism.

Your system is under attack from within and without; I merely pick up on the internal dissent in your country and the political disambiguities of socialized medicine to underline points made by your own countrymen.

For other American posters and commentors who may not realize the terror that all of Europe underwent during world war two, and may not understand their desire and urge to band together in social harmony and disdain the discord that is America.

As the horrors and deprivations of those wartime years fade and a new generation arises, they begin to question the welfare state mentality of their elders and seek a new expression of their individuality.

I listen to the rhetoric of this Hannan EMP speaking and I hear a new, rational, objective voice that I find very persuasive that the 'great generation', the veterans of that war, are finding new ways of expressing their distaste for the nanny state that is Great Britain.

It is not my criticism you need be concerned with, it is that arising from your own children and grandchildren. They will not be satisfied with a warmed over semi socialist state.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Almost on the money, Og. Amicus replies to what he wants those who disagree with him to have said so that he can rant, preach and soapbox to to his heart's content. And thus maintain his self-image as the lone martyr of true facts and wisdom in a world of fools

It would really ruin that self-imagine to think that anyone who disagrees with him is knowledgeable and experienced and presenting valid facts and common sense equal to or greater than his own. That might mean that what you were saying (horrors!) might be right.[/QUOTE]

~~~

3113..do you ever offer anythng besides criticism? If it is some variant of socialized medicine you advocate, do step up, present your argument and defend it.

I doubt you can deny the controversial nature of the issue, unless you relegate the millions world wide as right wing nut cases who just oppose anything, or the entire Republican compliment in Congress, not a single one of whom has voted for or is likely to vote for Obamacare.

Being controversial, you have a choice to ignore the fray or plunge in and take a stand.]

Grow some balls, man, or crawl back under your rock.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Og, you are of course perfectly right, He isn't listening. His prejudices will not permit him to. He knows as a matter of faith that the market is always right. You are wasting your time, and really we'd all be better off if you put him on 'ignore'.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Yes, SimonBrooke, you would be much better off ignoring the opposition to your Marxist theories since you surely cannot defend them.

That human individual liberty is the essential moral value for all human life is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of knowledge; that a 'free market', is the logical and rational extension of individual freedom is also not a matter of faith but of reason.

I just love your, 'we'd' all be better off remaining ignorant than becoming enlightened, how communal of you.

I find it rather heartening that now, once we have a socialist oriented President and Congress, that the American people are rising up in opposition. I only hope it is not too late to hold back the surge of the left.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

I think the question is simpler than that.

Can National Welfare be said to strengthen the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness"? Does right to life also include duty to prevent each other from dying? Do you have a resposibility to care about anyone's liberty but your own? Is it the goverment's job to facilitate opportunities to pursuit happiness? (And if it doesn't is it then infinging on people's wight to pursue happiness, by allowing an environment where they can't?) That's the big divide between the ideologies, I think. Not whether rights can be set aside, but whether it's goverment's role to actively or passively grant them.

If I have the right to life, do I have the right to be protected from murderers?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, for the most part, it appears you are just not equipped to engage in a discussion concerning human rights or Constitutional meanings. That could be from ignorance or dogma, one can't quite determine which from reading your commentaries.

"If you have the right to your life?" My God, man, get your head out of Kierkegaard, (he was in your neighborhood, right?), and figure out if you are even alive and if so, if that life is valuable to you, and if you have a, 'right' to defend that life or hire a Cop to do it for you.

Get that figured out, take two Amicus and call me tomorrow...



ami

 

[Liar]

I think the question is simpler than that.

Can National Welfare be said to strengthen the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happyness"? Does right to life also include duty to prevent each other from dying? Do you have a resposibility to care about anyone's liberty but your own? Is it the goverment's job to facilitate opportunities to pursuit happiness? (And if it doesn't is it then infinging on people's wight to pursue happiness, by allowing an environment where they can't?) That's the big divide between the ideologies, I think. Not whether rights can be set aside, but whether it's goverment's role to actively or passively grant them.

If I have the right to life, do I have the right to be protected from murderers?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, for the most part, it appears you are just not equipped to engage in a discussion concerning human rights or Constitutional meanings. That could be from ignorance or dogma, one can't quite determine which from reading your commentaries.

"If you have the right to your life?" My God, man, get your head out of Kierkegaard, (he was in your neighborhood, right?), and figure out if you are even alive and if so, if that life is valuable to you, and if you have a, 'right' to defend that life or hire a Cop to do it for you.

Get that figured out, take two Amicus and call me tomorrow...



ami

God, you dissapoint me.

I wrote: If I have the right to life, do I have the right to be protected from murderers?

You yank half of that sentence out of context, and maliciously spin it to imply that I doubt that I have the right to life? An act of willful idiocy if there ever was one. And used that as a starting point for your usual masturbatory snide-tripping tripe....

I don't know why I'm surprised really. Complete and utter, and somtimes willful, failure to comprehend what people write seems to be your one constant.

Pathetic. Complerely and utterly pathetic.