Re: You must admit.........

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:46:31 -0600, Mickey wrote:
Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:24:22 -0600, Mickey wrote:
Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:21:02 -0600, Mickey wrote:
Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:19:36 -0600, Mickey wrote:
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:18:43 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

"Socialized" means that society pays; it's a system based on
socialism or social democracy.

Although, oddly enough, its application is highly selective.
Even though society pays (and payment is enforced), we'd be
hard-pressed to find anyone ranting about socialised domestic
security and crime deterrent (police), socialised national
self-defence (armed forces) or socialised personal transport
(roads).

These are proper applications of taxpayer money. These are
large-scale infrastructure items that benefit the nation as a
whole. Medical care is a personal, individual item. The State
is not responsible for my doctor visits, my house or my food.

What is the criteria again that makes some infrastructure
projects good and others evil?

I don't know. What infrastructure project is evil?

Universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare <> infrastructure.

Come on, Carbon, you know better than that.

But if you insist, then when "health care" BECOMES infrastructure,
that's precisely when it becomes wrong.

What I'm asking you is why you think that is.

Because it inevitably involves the State in business where it has no
business.

I suppose the business would be lowering the cost of healthcare for
Americans. Like the interstate highway system lowered the cost of travel
for Americans. Why is one more evil than the other?

Universal systems are cheaper and have statistically better outcomes
than the US system. I guess the better outcomes part is great, but
mostly I'm cheap and want the least expensive system that does the
job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

I would rather pay more and be in control.

You have a for-profit insurance company and a long policy with a lot of
fine print that was created by company lawyers trying to control
expenditures. I'm not understanding why you think that's better.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: You must admit.........
    ... socialism or social democracy. ... What is the criteria again that makes some infrastructure projects ... Universal healthcare infrastructure. ... Universal systems are cheaper and have statistically better outcomes ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: You must admit.........
    ... socialism or social democracy. ... large-scale infrastructure items that benefit the nation as a whole. ... Universal healthcare infrastructure. ... Come on, Carbon, you know better than that. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: This American Life: Homosexual Psych Definitions
    ... providing infrastructure to nations which don't have it. ... Socialism, on the other ... providing infrastructure to developing nations. ... The Romans were building tunnels, bridges & roads 2,000 ...
    (soc.motss)
  • Re: OT: r - I thought you should see this
    ... Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. ... Is it "socialism"? ... we're more concerned with Iraq's infrastructure than our own.] ... Both are irresponsible activities by the Federal government. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: You must admit.........
    ... socialism or social democracy. ... Even though society pays, ... What is the criteria again that makes some infrastructure ... Universal healthcare infrastructure. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)