England to 'decentralize' National Health Plan!

[amicus]

Back checking on your minions, good idea, they are performing poorly. What are you doing, trying out for the lowest class of Euro trash award, or is that the best you have?

 

[oggbashan]

That is crazy. The one I had was 2000 and with contrast I think it is going to be closer to 9000. Your system is so much cheaper.

I forgot - our nearest MRI machine was bought for the NHS by a local charity so cost the NHS NOTHING. Its maintenance is also paid for by the charity so the NHS cost is staff time (staff training on MRI paid for by the charity) and power use.

I have no excuse for forgetting because I pay into that charity by direct debit each month.

I have an annual eye scan to check for signs of glaucoma. The vehicle that is equipped to do the scan, one of five in our county, travels around doing the scans free. The scans, the vehicles and the staff are paid for by another local charity. Those who have the scans done are asked to make a donation - if they can afford it - towards the cost of the service. The amount of voluntary donations received has meant that the charity was able to grow from one vehicle to five.

Philanthropic health care can co-exist with our National Health Service. We don't leave everything to government funding.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

These thread remind me of why I wish I could move to the UK...

I wouldn't recommend moving to the UK just for the National Health Service.

Dr Mabeuse's pictures show that the UK is just average in European terms in providing universal health care at a reasonable cost. It is the US that is way out of line compared with most Western democracies.

It would be better to stay in your own country and try to improve those things it doesn't do well, as I try to do in my community.

Many people have said over generations that it isn't a place/town/country that matters, that the grass over the fence isn't always as green as it looks, and that who and what you are is the important thing.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

Final response to Amicus (in this thread)

I'm sorry, friend, but you have lost the plot. You attack 'socialism' when no one is defending the sort of socialism you think exists. You cannot or will not understand that free peoples can and will make different choices through democratic elections, and those choices can produce a different set of priorities from yours.

Your denials, your ranting, your changes of subject - all reflect your inability to recognise a fact even if it was inscribed on a large dead fish and you were beaten about the head with it.

Og

 

[JackLuis]

I'm sorry, friend, -
Your denials, your ranting, your changes of subject - all reflect your inability to recognise a fact even if it was inscribed on a large dead fish and you were beaten about the head with it.

Og

Oh, Oh can we try that? How about a Halibut? or better yet a cod?

 

[amicus]

I'm sorry, friend, but you have lost the plot. You attack 'socialism' when no one is defending the sort of socialism you think exists. You cannot or will not understand that free peoples can and will make different choices through democratic elections, and those choices can produce a different set of priorities from yours.

Your denials, your ranting, your changes of subject - all reflect your inability to recognise a fact even if it was inscribed on a large dead fish and you were beaten about the head with it.

Og

~~~

I surmise it was my Post #68 that presented an allegorical 'Berlin Wall', to dear Ogbashan, the final challenge to Ogg:

There is a fundamental moral premise that you always avoid dealing with; that of the right of the many to impose their will on the few.

Hugo spent 1900 pages addressing that basic moral question and yet you will not even address it.

Why?

Amicus

It is not and has never been 'socialism' that I combat, it is instead, the underlying philosophical premise promoted by Ogg and others, that human values exist only in the collective and the individual is merely fodder for the greater good.

As I implied earlier, the collectivists would prefer a debate over the efficacy of nationalized health care or 'the final solution', with facts and figures disassociated from the fundamental moral and ethical effects of a cost/benefit ratio mindset.

It is the classic, 'ends justify the means' polemic, in which the fate of the individual is lost in the quest for a perceived end result.

I don't blame you for withdrawing from the debate, Ogg; you can not win this argument.

Amicus

 

[Seduc1ove]

Sounds more like you can't show that systems which attempt to provide healthcare to all of a nation's citizens are either ineffective or failures so instead you choose to proclaim that there is some basic moral dilemma to having such a system. lol

 

[Handley_Page]

Amicus

It is not and has never been 'socialism' that I combat, it is instead, the underlying philosophical premise promoted by Ogg and others, that human values exist only in the collective and the individual is merely fodder for the greater good.

.


Sorry mon Ami, but I think you are missing something.
Human values are individual. When a lot of folk think the same, then it becomes Policy or Law (by the People, for the People).

The individual may become fodder for the Common good in a Communist state (not even a socialist one), but not in a modern Democracy.

 

[Loring2]

Incredible ...

Money.

Children (I have custody arrangements with someone here over my children).

Money.

I don't have a job and, thus, no reason for them to allow me to stay.

Money.

Oh, and, um, money.

Are you also as mentally insufficient as you appear to be?; A little loony maybe?

 

[djserani]

Are you also as mentally insufficient as you appear to be?; A little loony maybe?

What did I do to deserve that kind of attack?

 

[amicus]

Sounds more like you can't show that systems which attempt to provide healthcare to all of a nation's citizens are either ineffective or failures so instead you choose to proclaim that there is some basic moral dilemma to having such a system. lol

~~~

No, it doesn't 'sound' like that at all.

Perhaps you were not around when the glowing reports of how well socialized medicine worked in the Soviet Union were splattered all over the headlines.

The much adored Coca Cola advertisement of years ago, 'I want to give the world...' slips into my mind as you are entranced with the idea of providing healthcare to all a nation's citizens by the use of force.

It is difficult to get through the cultural barrier you have erected to even discuss the obscenity of collectivist governments in general. You seem to have imbedded in your moral premises that it is a value, a good thing, a proper thing, a righteous thing, to extort wealth from each individual to support a plan, any plan, dreamed up by a benevolent government.

I have watched Ogg and others manufacture data and facts to support just how fine the NHS performs and all of a sudden, when hard evidence appears that the plan is an abject failure, suddenly, 'it's not perfect, but...', the apologies and rationalizations begin to roll out.

I will keep trying in hope that one day you will begin to ask the right questions; those concerning the importance of human liberty.

Amicus

 

[Seduc1ove]

I didn't realize they were using force or extorting wealth. I was under the impression that they simply require everyone to purchase health insurance. Silly me. Sort of like what they already do with automobile insurance right?

 

[amicus]

I didn't realize they were using force or extorting wealth. I was under the impression that they simply require everyone to purchase health insurance. Silly me. Sort of like what they already do with automobile insurance right?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Are you just being obstinate or do you not know that 'require' = 'force'?

Does not the threat of arrest if you refuse to pay taxes not imply the use of force?

I am opposed to mandatory automobile insurance; it should be in the province of a persons individual choice.

Amicus

 

[Seduc1ove]

'require' does not equal 'force'

Force as you are using it implies more severe consequences and require implies lighter consequences. Many people will choose not to have insurance perhaps even as a form of protest. Their penalty will be a small tax penalty. Not even as severe as not carrying auto insurance.

So I suppose you also believe all illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because it is their personal individual choice to live in whatever country they want?

 

[amicus]

I apologize, Handley-Page, I slipped on by your Post meaning to return...

~~~

Amicus

It is not and has never been 'socialism' that I combat, it is instead, the underlying philosophical premise promoted by Ogg and others, that human values exist only in the collective and the individual is merely fodder for the greater good.

.

Sorry mon Ami, but I think you are missing something.
Human values are individual. When a lot of folk think the same, then it becomes Policy or Law (by the People, for the People).

The individual may become fodder for the Common good in a Communist state (not even a socialist one), but not in a modern Democracy.

~~~

I think our disconnect lies in the area of innate or unalienable rights possessed by each individual.

Even if 'a lot of folks think the same', it does not justify you sacrificing my rights, my choice to the majority, even in a social democracy.

Human rights cannot be voted away by a majority; I am not required to surrender my individual choices to suit yours or societies.

The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Our government has no authority to impose taxes to create national healthcare and has no rights to demand automobile insurance for each driver.

I am well aware that the government has, in effect, done both, but they have done so without Constitutional authority. Our government exists only to protect the life, liberty and property of its' citizens; nothing more.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

I didn't realize they were using force or extorting wealth. I was under the impression that they simply require everyone to purchase health insurance. Silly me. Sort of like what they already do with automobile insurance right?

There's a huge difference between the two.

Auto insurances' primary function is to provide for the person with whom you have an accident...you're secondary, hence the deductible...and the mandatory state requirement to have it in order to have a licence.

A large number of the uninsured in this country choose not to buy health insurance, primarily the young, the profligate and the short-sighted. It's their choice and their life. That's freedom.

Those who do want health insurance and cannot afford it can petition the government for assistance. That's free choice. That's freedom.

For the government to compel everyone to buy health insurance under penalty of law is tyranny.

 

[amicus]

'require' does not equal 'force'

Force as you are using it implies more severe consequences and require implies lighter consequences. Many people will choose not to have insurance perhaps even as a form of protest. Their penalty will be a small tax penalty. Not even as severe as not carrying auto insurance.

So I suppose you also believe all illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because it is their personal individual choice to live in whatever country they want?[/QUOTE]

~~~

There is little point in arguing definitions, Seduc1ove; government can only function with the threat of implied force if you do not obey the laws. Otherwise no one would obey any law they disagreed with. The degree of penalty is not relevant.

Millions of people have petitioned for citizenship in America because our 'rights' and liberties are protected. Millions have been given 'political asylum' in the US because conditions in their home countries are oppressive.

US law applies only to US citizens; those here without permission, illegally, are not protected by our laws.

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

For the government to compel everyone to buy health insurance under penalty of law is tyranny.

How horrible! Everyone will have health insurance!

Next thing you know, women will want to be considered equal to men! Can you imagine?



(I really, really wish y'all could see how silly you all sound. Honestly.)

 

[Seduc1ove]

There's a huge difference between the two.

Auto insurances' primary function is to provide for the person with whom you have an accident...you're secondary, hence the deductible...and the mandatory state requirement to have it in order to have a licence.

A large number of the uninsured in this country choose not to buy health insurance, primarily the young, the profligate and the short-sighted. It's their choice and their life. That's freedom.

Those who do want health insurance and cannot afford it can petition the government for assistance. That's free choice. That's freedom.

For the government to compel everyone to buy health insurance under penalty of law is tyranny.

That actually furthers my argument. You are saying that we are forced to by auto insurance for the other driver's benefit and then you say we shouldn't have to buy health insurance if we don't feel it is to our own benefit? Opposite arguments.

The plan allows for government assistance and hardship exemptions from the penalty.

It is not penalty of law. It is minor penalty of tax. lol

 

[Seduc1ove]

How horrible! Everyone will have health insurance!

Next thing you know, women will want to be considered equal to men! Can you imagine?



(I really, really wish y'all could see how silly you all sound. Honestly.)

cloudy,

I love your avatar!

 

[Seduc1ove]

'require' does not equal 'force'

Force as you are using it implies more severe consequences and require implies lighter consequences. Many people will choose not to have insurance perhaps even as a form of protest. Their penalty will be a small tax penalty. Not even as severe as not carrying auto insurance.

So I suppose you also believe all illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because it is their personal individual choice to live in whatever country they want?[/QUOTE]

~~~

There is little point in arguing definitions, Seduc1ove; government can only function with the threat of implied force if you do not obey the laws. Otherwise no one would obey any law they disagreed with. The degree of penalty is not relevant.

Millions of people have petitioned for citizenship in America because our 'rights' and liberties are protected. Millions have been given 'political asylum' in the US because conditions in their home countries are oppressive.

US law applies only to US citizens; those here without permission, illegally, are not protected by our laws.

Amicus

No, the degree of penalty is quite relevant. It just doesn't bode well for your side of the argument so you choose to disregard it. The government isn't trying to force everyone at gunpoint to buy their insurance as you are trying to imply. That is just spin.

They are only illegally here because we have stricter immigration now which isn't their fault or choice. If you choose to argue about the moral implications of individual rights then that argument should apply equally to all issues.

 

[cloudy]

cloudy,

I love your avatar!

Thank you.

 

[TE999]

How horrible! Everyone will have health insurance!

Next thing you know, women will want to be considered equal to men! Can you imagine?



(I really, really wish y'all could see how silly you all sound. Honestly.)

Both a specious and smarmy comment as usual.

You're both predictable and boring.

 

[TE999]

That actually furthers my argument. You are saying that we are forced to by auto insurance for the other driver's benefit and then you say we shouldn't have to buy health insurance if we don't feel it is to our own benefit? Opposite arguments.

The plan allows for government assistance and hardship exemptions from the penalty.

It is not penalty of law. It is minor penalty of tax. lol

You've missed the point. It's choice versus compulsion. You can choose not to own a car and drive and take commercial transit. Thus you don't need insurance.

I believe I mentioned that fact concerning assistance.

Oh, but it is the law. Read the Health Care Bill's Mandates. Plus a 'minor penalty' of tax today could be a major penalty tomorrow. That penalty also falls under the aegis of the mandates and can be changed at the whim of the HHS Director...as can over a hundred other mandates in the Bill resulting in total bureaucratic control of health care in the US.

It's no laughing matter.

 

[Seduc1ove]

You've missed the point. It's choice versus compulsion. You can choose not to own a car and drive and take commercial transit. Thus you don't need insurance.

I believe I mentioned that fact concerning assistance.

Oh, but it is the law. Read the Health Care Bill's Mandates. Plus a 'minor penalty' of tax today could be a major penalty tomorrow. That penalty also falls under the aegis of the mandates and can be changed at the whim of the HHS Director...as can over a hundred other mandates in the Bill resulting in total bureaucratic control of health care in the US.

It's no laughing matter.

That is true that you don't have to own a car, but how many people don't have cars? There probably isn't a single person in this country who has ever made the choice to not buy a car because if they did it would require insurance. Regardless, any citizen who owns a car still is "forced" to buy auto insurance already which is very similar to the health reform. Although amicus already stated he is against both.

Fine, then you should protest when they try to make the penalty more severe. Until then, it isn't a big deal. That is an issue with the way this all gets implemented which even supporters will watch and we'll all be for/against aspects of it and debate whether they are necessary/wrong/good/bad. The reform itself is not only a good idea, but a long overdue one. The implementation we'll have to work on just like the U.K. is doing. We'll have to make ours perfect.