Why Obama's Plan Sucks

Why Obama’s Plan Sucks

  1. He should convert all homes in foreclosures directly into RENTS. The rents would go to county - local taxes, or state taxes or federal taxes to pay for public services, maybe like increasing public transportation.

  2. The property of the homes would at least for some temporary time be owned by the state or govenment. No need to bailout anyone, just be honest with people and say that most of them should rent homes, belong in the social class that rents homes, only the upper middle class should be allowed to buy homes and should be buying houses as properties.

  3. The rents should be one third of income accordingly, or a low cost like between 300 to 700 dollars a month accordingly.

  4. Stop all the crap about “jobs”, million of “jobs”, etc. There are no jobs, and there were never any real jobs, and there will never be any jobs again. There is no reason why you need millions of people in “jobs”, all the goods and services that are produced worldwide can be done with a few million people, and even better, and even more efficiently at a better cost and better quality. All those thousands of layoffs just go to show that those people were never needed, are not needed. The ideology of having to work is a false ideology, it is just a brainwashing of the ruling class to not give the basic goods to the population. There is no way that you need so many millions of people “working” 8 hours a day everyday, manipulating items everyday when none of it is really needed. This just creates complexity, confusion, depletion of resources, further conflicts, and negative productivity and a huge negative net result. Society loses much more in terms of products and goods and resources by having all these clowns “work” as opposed to them just staying home and playing around with their hobbies. We live in a new technological system, where optimizations have rendered WORK OBSOLETE. GET OVER IT, WORK IS NO LONGER NECESSARY AND NEEDED AND IS JUST CREATING MORE PROBLEMS AND MORE POVERTY AS OPPOSED TO CREATING WEALTH.

  5. Central govenments should just give a basic salary to everyone, and work will be done on a case by case basis according to what is necessary, we don’t need financial industries or lawyers that want people to fight between themselves all the time. You don’t need to clean your house 8 hours a day everyday do you ? No, only when it is necessary, and so with work.

  6. Stop all the crap on “environment”, green world, alternative energy, etc. That is all bull, get thousands of simple gasoline buses on the roads, create optimized public transport with internet calling and management, this alone would save alot of energy, along with the fact that millions won’t have to work in fake jobs anymore would save even more energy, along with the fact that people would not need to buy loads of useless consumerist crap would definitely solve the energy - green - peak oil - global climate problem once and for all.

Obama’s Plan is just the same old ideological crap that people have been saying for decades, they don’t have a clue, the system is changed now, technology has made work obsolete.

May I add a couple of other points ?

  1. Public Health Care for everyone, at least the basics, the things that really count like operations, etc. The optional health care like check ups can be somewhat private and pay for, but the real basics of health should be free. You can get the money to pay for it from all the homes that should now become rented and go into state - federal income.

:sunglasses: Stop all the crap on having to pay so much money for college - university. It should be mostly free or only a small amount of money should be required to learn, aside from the fact that you can learn alot just through the internet and books, no need to spend thousands of dollars for college, a “status quo” thing. The upper middle class can continue to pay all that money, but normal slobs should get this free.

yeah i like your ideas, lets definately have free healthcare and college too, and have government guarantee me cheap housing and cheap public transportation… thats what i deserve, i dont want to work, i just want everything for free, hey thats the job of government, what else could it be? =P~

man, this is awesome, why stop here? i want a free corvette, a 60" HD TV, maybe even free passes to the movie theater and the golf club for life. yea, obamas plan sucks majorly, because it doesnt do any of these things!!!

cmon wheres that change we were believing in?!??
:unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

What’s wrong with free healthcare or free education or, hell, even free public transport, TTG?

Weren’t all those people buying houses in the USA asking for free stuff ? Did they think they could buy a 200,000 dollar house on a small down payment and a small monthly fee ? Weren’t they all fooling themselves ?

Buying a home is something rich people do, not the average slob. This is the number one mistake, a home is a place you rent, and you should be able to rent it cheaply.

Look at Western Europe or Japan or any other country in the world. These countries have no consumer economy because they all have to pay very high rents or prices for homes. The net worth of all Tokyo real estate is worth more than the entire USA! A small crappy 30 square meter apartment in London is worth more than 500,000 dollars! These countries are insane and outside any possibility of ever growing again and having any consumer economy: all the money people make there must go to housing, simply to survive.

Now the USA had the smart idea to imitate them and now look where the USA is. Since all those crappy, essentially poor countries depend only on USA consumption, they are all paying a much higher price in this crisis than the USA. When the only consumer economy in the world tanks, they get completely wiped out. But if you ask the UK, EU or JAPAN, how about cheap rents for your people ? How about starting some kind of consumer economy for your people and not strangling them with high rents and housing costs ? They just keep on fooling themselves that they are rich because their real estate is worth so much. The USA is and will always be the only real consumer economy in the world because they have been trained for decades like this, while all other countries like China too, have been trained to save money and pay high rents and high prices for homes.

But beware the USA has a few other problems too:

  1. High salaries, the USA worker makes double what most people in other countries make, hence the USA is non competitive;

  2. High Health Care costs, and a messy private system that bankrupts people, most other countries have a public free system;

  3. High College education costs, most other countries have a much lower costing system.

So Japan, EU and UK are used to living poorly with impossible rents, the USA will live poor with high rents and all the other expenses too.

So the rents in the USA must be greatly slashed, 300 dollars a month, and they have to stop believing in the idiotic idea of owning a house.

  1. nothing is free

  2. economic explanation: that free healthcare destroys the industry because prices get out of control, because a) people will use more of a service when it is free, b) government, due to its distance from the individual level and the unending amount of ‘red tape’ cannot manage healthcare as efficiently as local private companies, c) government has no incentive to control costs since its not their money theyre spending (and the more they spend this year, the bigger budget they can justify for next year, so their incentive is to balloon costs), d) prices are not set by supply/demand and there is no competition, so there is NOTHING keeping prices fixed to a necessary-minimum.

  3. ethical explanation: that no one has the right to demand or expect that others sacrifice their lives or work to himself or his “needs”. you say “free healthcare”-- free, provided by whom? at whose expense? by what right do you have to take 30% of my paycheck and apply it to someone elses healthcare? how is my property, my work, my life at the service of anyone other than whom i designate? if someone invested time and money into developing a drug/procedure/medical product then they are entitled to sell it as they see fit, or to not sell it, since its theirs and they put in the risk and investment to make it. yet under “free” healthcare, no one can make a profit, because no one owns their own work… and profit is the single motivating factor for people to work hard and strive for success and achievment. take away peoples reward for their hard work, and they will stop working hard.

  4. practical explanation: the number of people entering the medical field will be drastically reduced if we socialize healthcare. doctors work to make money, gain knowledge, get respect. free healthcare destroys these motivations, because it caps all physician salaries, it limits what procedures can be done because every doctor needs to consult with a beauracrat before he perscribes anything, and as i heard a doctor say recently, “we didnt become doctors to be public servants; if we wanted that, we would have joined the army and became a medic.” just look at the flock of expert physicians that fled the UK to america when the UK socialized their healthcare system… universal healthcare will severely limit the number of doctors (and the number of GOOD doctors!) within even the first year or two, not to mention down the road. the investment alone in education to be a physician is so high that no one would do it if at the end they were only going to get a $45,000 government salary and no freedom to make their own choices or determinations about treatment. why then even invest over $100,000 and 10 years of your life?

  5. explanation from freedom: when we give government the power over our healthcare, then government has the right to TELL US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES, by virtue of the fact that THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT… if government is forking out the cash for my healthcare, then the government can tell me what to eat, what not to eat, what drugs to take and what not to take, what vitamins/shots/vaccinations/treatments i HAVE to take, which i CANNOT take, whether im too fat or too skinny, etc etc etc etc…

is that how you want to live?

when government is paying for your life, they own you life. do you want the freedom to CHOOSE your life, your health and your healthcare, or do you want some federal beauracrat telling you “sorry, youre 56 years old, you cant have this surgery”, even though its not that expensive, but they figure they will just save the money for someone younger who will live longer-- do you think that wont happen? look up the british healthcare system. it happens all the time, it is a nightmare.

…even disregarding the glaringly obvious pitfalls and failures of public education and transportation, they are also terrible ideas from similar perspectives: they are economically unsound, they divorce individual choice from individual results, they destroy competition and hence public choice as well as pressure to remain efficient and effective, and at heart they violate the american principle of the RIGHT to your LIFE and PROPERTY… at the heart of all these types of “public services” is the singular results of the loss of freedom, the loss of YOUR individual rights. is that what you really want? youd rather let some government entity dictate to you how to live your life, make your choices for you, steal more and more of your money, just because its too hard to think for yourself or work for your own sake?

all of these socialist measures are wrong ethically, practically and economically, and all of them fail in the short or long run. that is what is wrong with “free” healthcare, “free” education, “free” transportation, and any other “free” government “public service”.

This would be all correct in an idealized world, in a world where everyone was so top notch, was a great doctor, was greatly competitive in what they do, was a superior worker etc. In reality there are few people who are great at anything, most are average slobs, so if not free at least partially subsidized services should be available. Even having everything be very expensive for the average slobs is a form of limiting their freedom, you can have health care only if you work in this top company with this top pay, etc. You can have a house only if you pay this high rent or mortgage etc.

So your view can also be a view of limiting freedom for the average slobs.

The truth is that there are not all these sectors, jobs, inventions, “new drugs”, etc. where all these millions of people can be “superior”, can “work hard”, can “deserve more”. In fact what you say may apply to maybe a few million in the USA who are great dentists, lawyers, engineers or doctors, etc. What about the other 50 million average slobs ? They will have to downzise ever more for the benefit of the very talented.

Oh wait, they deserve to be poor because they didn’t “work hard” enough, they didn’t “study enough” etc. Well then the country that is closest to your ideal is Nigeria, or Zimbabwe where a few very rich have everything.

Get real, most people are average clowns, all this talk of “hard work” and deserving is a bunch of ideological crap that serves the purpose of the rich to squeeze the poor, to let the poor feel guilty of how they have failed the rat race, of how they deserve to be punished, and how the rich deserve all their money for all the “hard work” they did.

why is it that everyone can afford car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, but not health insurance? because car home and life insurance are still fairly deregulated; the government hasnt stepped in to “compete” with private companies, and so there are TONS of choices out there for consumers, all relatively affordable, because of the competition that keeps the companies FORCED to keep prices to a necessary-minimum in order to get any business.

this doesnt work in healthcare because no one can compete with government. through medicare, government sets ALL PRICES and SALARIES currently, even in our “partly subsidized” system. private health insurance cant compete with government. there is no competition keeping choices open or keeping prices down for consumers. of the government got out of healthcare and let it regulate itself like car insurance, home insurance or life insurance, there would be tons of affordable health insurance plans out there that anyone could buy if they wished, or not buy if they didnt want too… thats another side of the coin the socialists dont mention: about 1/3 of the “uninsured” are WORKING PEOPLE, who are LESS THAN 30 YEARS OLD, and CHOOSE not to buy health insurance, because they dont want it; it doesnt make sense for them, theyd rather save their money, they dont want it and they dont need it.

under a free system, all these problems get worked out naturally. its only when government steps in and starts passing laws, capping pay, setting procedure and drug prices, loading the system down with so much regulation and red tape that it adds $1 for every $2 already spent, just in administrative procedures…

and thats the system you think benefits everyone the best?

name, i see you added some more to your post, nice take on human nature, im glad to see youre such a compassionate guy, so much faith in your fellow man. i can definitely see how your theory on healthcare and public services is motivated by “whats best for people”, since its so obvious that you care so much.

so because some people are worthless, we should all just give up and let everyone become cattle tied to the government troff? destroy the wealth, freedom and prosperity of the USA because most people like you are too lazy to work for anything, and just want a free ride?

yea, i can definitely see why anyone would buy into your take on the issue, since youre clearly so informed and rational, so motivated to help your fellow man, whose wellbeing you care so much about. not lazy, defeatest, or worthless at all.

i also notice that you didnt address any of my specific points, other than rant about how worthless people are… ill take that as that you have no response, since you know my specific points and facts are correct.

nice job making your case by dodging every point i made; i guess thats what works while youre waiting in line at the unemployment office, huh?

People should use it only when it is really necessary, this can be learned and they can pay a price if they insist.
Governments can be made accountable, public managers can be forced to optimize systems.

Companies do this all the time. You sacrifice your needs for the company’s profit.
You are at the service of who pays you.

Rich people will always want to pay for better health care, you must give an option to poor.

Not having a choice for the poor is where freedom is taken away. This is completely wrong, competition and results can be achieved in any way and in any organization according to how it is managed. The property of the organization either public or private can be made irrelevant to results. The Atom Bomb was made by a “public organization” and so was the moon landing…

Eugenics, Brainwashing, and Control Grid

Can’t remeber how many of these types of debates I read or had, etc. It all boils down to a few things: the personal subjective experience of a person, so maybe a person “worked hard”, was successful and made money, hence the system worked for that person, he was successful, so the person thinks the whole world has had his same experience.

There are cases, especially in private companies and some sectors, like engineering and others where the hard work made you gain success for a time, but then the wind changes and you get laid off, etc. So that particular experience makes you doubt somewhat the “hard work” - competiton ideology.

Average people can work 3 low paying jobs and still barely get by, etc.

So it can’t be generalized, but I am sure that many sectors are bloated, or don’t require so much work anymore, I may be wrong, but that is my impression. Health Care, I don’t know too much about, but I do know that the private USA system is messy…

im sorry, i guess i was working under the assumption that people were responsible for themselves and their choices. my bad.

i guess i just assumed i was talking to an adult about other adults… i should have realised that im talking to a child, about other children who want government “mommy and daddy” to take care of them, make sure they have their food, warm bed to sleep in, nice toys to play with. make sure theyre protected from big, bad real-world, where sometimes, people work hard and still lose their jobs. now an adult would shrug it off and work twice as hard to get a new job, to make their own way in the world-- but hey, i forgot, we’re not talking about adults now are we?

my mistake, making crazy assumptions like that.

TTG, great post, better than my rather pithy question probably deserved. There’s lots there I agree with and probably as much I don’t, but in the interests of doing justice to it I’m going to take some time over my reply.

Hmm… :-k

How right you are, and I should have been more specific. I meant “free at the point of service”, as they say over here about the NHS (it’s not true, by the way, it doesn’t exist as such). Clearly “nothing comes for free”, that’s a given, so the question really should be how to make the service freely available to the user. In an ideal scenario, that means not having to pay, but we can also consider other senses of “freely available” while we’re at it.

I’ve bolded some of the phrases you use here just to give a sense of how I think your “economic” outlook is unidimensional. None of those “things” have to exist by necessity. The economy you posit is basically (ie. at base) fictive, its constituent parts abstractions from the basic inter-relations that produce them. Now, I accept that these abstractions exist because they offer an “efficient” system of management, but, as Magnet Man is so frequently pointing out - and here he’s right - they have a history, they have been generated. This means that they are not given. We could abstract our economic relationships in different ways, and I think that “public service” is one area where that might be possible. Part of how that might happen is by a rejection of the distinction between “public” and “private”. Granted, that more than likely sounds like Red mania to a good old-fashioned American libertarian such as yourself (that’s not meant as an insult, by the way). So let me just say that I am not advocating submitting individuals to the authority of the state - indeed, by neutralising the distinction the individual becomes the state, and vice versa. Moreover, it becomes a much more pressing ethical issue when in abusing the system (either from above or below) you cheat yourself.

I’m sorry to do this again - I really don’t mean it personally, it’s just that it’s fascinating to me - but your “choice” of language is illuminating. The idea of “rights” you are espousing is all about you, quite literally - me, me, me. Moreover, you seem to be at war with everyone else; it really can’t be much fun. Why does being part of a community have to be a “sacrifice”? Wouldn’t it be better to see society as a space for shared responsibility and cooperation? What dictates that I would only ever want to do something because I stand to gain from it? For me, your view of ethics derives from an excessively individualised and instrumentalised conception of “work”. Truly ethical work, to my mind, is an act of self-creation, a projection into the world rather than a turning inward. I fundamentally disagree that “profit [my emphasis] is the single motivating factor for people to work hard and strive for success and achievement.” There are other, and I would argue better “rewards”.

If the over-riding factor in the decision to train as a doctor was financial, we’d hardly have any doctors at all (my girlfriend is a final year postgrad med student, so I think it’s fair to say I have some insight here, even if it is personalised). In fact, I’ll go further and say that you are belittling the commitment to care that is demonstrated by hundreds of thousands of doctors, nurses and carers around the world every day. I’m not suggesting that “care” is the only motivating factor, nor am I rejecting those that you posit, what I am rejecting is the economic model that seems to be at the heart of your conception. Take bureaucracy. Why does it exist on such a massive scale within public healthcare? It comes from a desire to micromanage the system that is imported into the public sector from private enterprise, from the existing economic context. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “care” and it prevents the carers (doctors, nurses, etc.) from focusing on their proper tasks, as you recognise. This bureaucracy isn’t necessary. What is more, it is neither the product of “free” healthcare (in the broad sense of free) nor the product of public service, which is inherently antithetical to this economic (ie. managed) conception. The public sphere, in its pure sense, is a free field of interaction and cooperation. When the public sphere centres on fiscal relationships it adopts strategies relating to targets and achievements and it builds up a bureaucratic structure to manage those processes. I’m advocating a different set of relationships.

It is certainly not how I want to live, as I’m sure you well know, but this is nothing more than a straw man. There is nothing about the principle of “free” healthcare (or education or whatever else) that requires it to be provided by a “government”, or at least not the kind of bureaucratic, totalitarian state that you envisage (just because a particular system has existed or exists in one place does not mean it is inevitable in all places). Likewise, neither is it the case, even if we were to turn over management of these systems to a government organisation, that we would also need to turn over our ethical responsibilities. It seems to me that in the political sphere you fundamentally distrust (I would say “lack faith in” if I didn’t already know your views on faith!) the selfsame democratic principles you are so keen to invest in the economic realm.

This is basically the same point as above, but I just want to pick up on the last bit, because it is troubling. I live in Britain and as I say I have close contact with what are called “healthcare professionals” (what an ugly, bureaucratic term that is - thank you, New Labour!) and this is not the sense of the NHS that I have, it simply isn’t true that decisions on treatment are made on discriminatory terms. However, it certainly is the case that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues guideline recommendations on treatment procedures and that there have been accusations levelled at this body for politically or fiscally-motivated decisions, but this strikes me as the product of exactly the bureaucratic target culture I rejected above. The proper task which a body like NICE is supposed to carry out (and I do not deny that it is capable of failing in this role) is the positive provision of guidance on best practice. It is a facilitator, and it is only when it is diverted from that role towards prohibition that it loses its focus. I’m not pretending that the British system is perfect (far from it), but what I am saying is that the problems are to do with specific strategies and not the basic principles. The problem arises from a muddled and, frankly, corrupted system. Corruption is, by definition, an external force.

I will give you your due, at least you are honest about your “american” sensibility. However, by labelling them as such you tacitly admit that your values are inherently local and situated (and it’s not surprising that you are still using terms like “individual” and “competition”). I reject the purity of your values and the conception of “public service” which you derive from them. In contrast, I want to assert a sense of communal action based on responsibility, integration and cooperation that is truly democratic and I want to posit public service as a space in which to actively promote these principles through a truly ethical work.

I’ve been quite critical in my comments above, so I just wanted to add here that this opposition is slightly affected for the purposes of stimulating discussion. I hope you don’t take it personally, because I think you have some interesting ideas and I’m far from wedded to my own view. Hopefully you choose to expand your analysis further.

Look, it is quite simple. For anyone who thinks socialism is great, take a look at ANY capitalist system that turned socialist, and see whether it got better, or got worse. Unanimously, they all get worse. America is a prime example. Every time the government regulates something, it fails. We have become more and more socialist over the years, and all it has lead to is one economic collapse after the other, and the biggest debt in world history. Before we turned socialist we were the wealthiest country in the world, the largest producer in the world, and the largest creditor nation in the world. The trade deficit was WAY in our favor. Now, after 90 years of socialism we are the world’s largest debtor nation, the world’s largest consumer nation, have a trade deficit that could span the grand canyon several times over, and are on the verge of collapse. YAY SOCIALISM!

Seriously, any time I hear anyone espouse that utter bullcrap I feel like strangling them. You all ruined our future by going along with this BS. You all sold out our freedom for some free goodies from big brother’s pantry. Let me tell you something, socialism was invented as a way for a small group of people to conquer the entire world. And thanks to you, they are VERY close to accomplishing their goals. The IMF, World Bank, WTO, and WHO are all united for one goal: World Socialism. The Nazis, North Koreans, and the Russian communists were socialists alike. Here you have the most vile, abhorrent, and corrupt people in the world. But here idiots are lined up in droves to follow these people because they are too worried what might go wrong if they were to act like grown ups and take care of themselves. The Fabian socialists are now VERY close to conquering our planet and it is all YOUR fault.

You know, capitalists have a reputation for being greedy. But that is the biggest crock of shit ever. Capitalists work for everything they get. It is the socialists who are just greedy little bitches that want, want, want everything and want to give nothing in return. They are a bunch of little crybabies that just suckle off the government teat and think that everything is always free and nobody should ever have to work for anything. I hope you all are happy in the totalitarian state you are setting up. A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away from you too. And that is precisely what is about to happen. Sieg Heil you fuck nuts!

thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response, it is much appreciated. i had to respond in a similar lengthy way, so feel free to take your time…

yes, however if your intention is to provide a service for free to the end-user, but that service is not inherently free itself, you need to explain and define just WHO is going to pay for that service, by what right they should be asked to pay, and why such an appropriation of others funds to be redistributed is inherently better than allowing people to pay on their own for the services they want/need.

if it is not shown that such redistribution is inherently “better”, practically, then the ethical objections to forceful theft of wealth from A to give to B, along with all the associated costs that drain money from A to B alone each step of government administration and processing, is not justified.

i agree that there is no inherent necessity with our mixed-capitalist economic system-- we could be any number of economic organization, from communism to laissez-faire to tribal pre-merchantilist to agrarian localism. however, if youre analyzing our system this way, then a) we need to make a case WHY we should change to a new mode, and b) show HOW this change could occur effectively and realistically. i argue that while our current mode is flawed, positive change does not lie in continuing the direction of increasing government control and nationalization, but returning to freedom, economic privatization and individualization, and limited government economic action. i can certainly make a very strong case for this position-- can you make a strong case for change into increasing government regulation and economic planning?

btw i am not libertarian, i understand no offense meant, but that does offend my intelligence just so you know. i cant stand the libertarian party, just as i cant stand the conservatives or liberals.

i do not understand how abolishing distinction betweein private and public does not lead to “submitting individuals to the authority of the state”-- who do you think will win out, whose power is greater, when we “level the playing field” and get rid of the individual rights, the constitutional guaranteees to the individual to be free from unnecessary government power into their lives? we have constitutional rights for precisely the reason that government and authority has ALWAYS throughout ALL history tended to oppress and tyrannize its people. government power grows naturally over time, unless restricted by the people. how exactly would we prevent such oppression and tyranny from government if it has unchecked power over ourselves, because there is no longer any distinction between public and private economic action?

in addition, such obliteration of this distinction could not really be enforced or practiced other than by making everyone a government employee, nationalizing EVERY business and industry… how exactly does this not count as “submitting individuals to the authority of the state” ?

you reject an ethical egoism and the inherency of personal profit motivation, which i will not be able to disuade you of. i will only say that this would perhaps be a good topic for another thread; also, we DO act to secure our life and our survival. how is this wrong? and further, there is nothing wrong with being “creative” as your work, but people that CHOOSE to do this ARE working for themselves, for their own benefit (profit). even if they are poor and make hardly any money, they still derive rewards from their creative work, and if that makes them happy, then that is their choice, theres nothing wrong with it. its just a basic fact of existence that people are psychologically and biologically motivated to act in their own best interests; what is wrong with this? it is a natural fact of our being an animal. yes, its “good” to be loving and caring for others in need, to want to help others, but this should not interfere with our ability to act in our own self interest-- at the point where nearly HALF of all the income (rewards) i earn are taken from me, i would consider that infringement of my right to act in my own benefit, which i consider a right due to the fact that it is a necessity for life. if we dont work for ourselves, no one will work just to keep us alive, and we should have no expectation that they would.

the problem i have is that society FORCES our choices, forces my to give 50% of my wealth to others, steals my rewards to give unearned rewards to others. that is fundamentally different than “an act of self-creation, a projection into the world rather than a turning inward”. when we are free to choose our life, we can do whatever makes us happy, and if that is being humanitarian or egalitarian, or working for low financial gain to be an artist or a non-profit, then thats your CHOICE… but thats what i mean, its about choice. when i lose almost half of all the income i earn, that robs me of my choices. and thats all im talking about, you choice, my choice, to freely determine our lives-- this means that we should keep government and taxation to a necessary minimum, to the expenses of enforcing and guaranteeing our right to life, freedom and property. why are you so antagonistic towards rights, perhaps we have a different view of what a “right” is, but i am referring to my right as a free adult to choose what i want to do, where i want to work, and what to do with my income… when we understand that income, profit from our work, literally IS our means of survival, our direct reward for our actions in the exact same way that a farmers harvest is the reward for his hard work all season, we see why it is so wrong for someone to take it away… it would be like taking half of that farmers hard work from the entire season, cutting down half his harvest and giving it to less successful farmers. its just not right, nor practical.

i guess i dont understand why you seem so opposed to having free choice over your life. every dollar government takes from you is loss of your freedom of choice in your life, loss of your POWER over your life. are you against having freedom to choose your life?

i never said doctors only care about money. but as i DID say, i bet they wouldnt invest over 100,000 dollars and 10 years of their lives to make less than a quarter of what they can make now. its just not cost-beneficial. as i stated, look at the UK, you will see they have a crisis with getting enough good doctors. people from all over the world come to america to get the best healthcare in the world, and its because our system REWARDS individuals for their work-- it DIRECTLY LINKS their rewards, be it financially or professionally or just their desire to do good as they see it, with their actual work. this is the inherent relation which secures the greatest possible outcome, because it gives people the greatest motivation. if some people just want to “do good” and dont care about the money, which you seem to think and which i could certainly agree with, how do you think they will be benefited more: having some authority telling them every step of the way what tests they can do for a patient, what treatments to do, if they have to consult a federal manual every time they want to open someones mouth and check for strep throat? or rather, are the better off if they can act freely of their own motivation, engage their intellects and education and choose how best to help their patient on their own? which is more rewarding psychologically and emotionally?

further, the bureaucrary causes far more harm than good-- there is ALWAYS a necessity of SOME bureaucracy, be it privat company structure or government, because there needs to exist a complex administrative structure for such a complicated service as healthcare to function. however, if youre concerned with minimizing this necessity, you would advocate for less government, because for reasons i mentioned, government is inherently wasteful and bloated, draining time and money from the system.

i guess i dont quite understand what you mean about public spheres being free fields-- the only free economic fields are NON-public (i.e. non government), because government cannot act freely in the economy– government has legal monopoly power and legal power of force via legislation. they dont have to compete, so any system or “field” where government operates cannot be free for any entity other than government itself.

here is the heart of our disgareement: i say that it IS necessary that free healthcare be managed by government. how could it be otherwise? what other entity has the power and authority to appropriate such a massive amount of money from everyone else, to fund a system which costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year? are you going to rely on donations, if you want it to be free? are you going to ask doctors and nurses to work for free, so they dont have to charge patients anything? it makes no sense, and it is not a straw man-- please explain just HOW a FREE system as large and complex as healthcare could remain “free” without government authority and legislation. just because the cost of a $15,000 surgery is “free” for the patient, doesnt mean its free, someone HAS to pay that $15,000 price tag. who would agree to pay this voluntarily, if government isnt taking the money to pay for it via taxation?

yes i do fundamentally distrust government; i guess i get stuck looking at ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and seeing all the slavery, poverty, starvation, oppression, murder, genocide that governments do to their peoples. only countries with limited government have any semblance of law and order, of freedom or opportunity, of happiness or prosperity, and this IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, there is a direct correlation and reason why limiting government leads to these outcomes. historically it has not been otherwise, and i see no reason to assume that now, somehow, if we give our government unchecked and complete power over us and our financial lives, it would be otherwise.

this is the basic collectivist argument: “well, i KNOW that the system isnt perfect NOW, but thats not a necessary result of the system itself! it could still be perfect, its not our fault!” this line is used by collectivists everywhere, to justify every kind of abuse and harm caused by government action. it just isnt true-- the failures of NHS and collective healthcare in general are directly caused by the nature of government action, as in unchecked power, as uncompetitive appropriator of wealth from A to hand to B. i accept that you believe your system is faulty for other reasons, but i disagree completely, and maintain that while free systems are not “perfect” either because perfection does not exist, they nevertheless provide a direct and logical correlation between service and patient, which is price/demand.

it comes down to this: healthcare is NOT a “right”, as i hear it so often said; it cannot be a right, because it needs to be provided by someone else. how could you have a right to something that someone else does for you, that costs them time and money? how can you demand as a moral imperative that someone work solely for your benefit? do you not think thats what free healthcare is, a forceful demand that someone else work at their own expense for your life? when you sift through the metaphors, political speech and stereotyped superficiality, thats EXACTLY what anyone who claims healthcare is a right is saying-- that it is THEIR RIGHT to have someone else work to provide them a free service, by definition at that other persons own expense. this is contradictory, however, to the concept of a right, since in this scenario your right to your life violates their right to their life, since they have NO CHOICE but to work for your life at their own expense. true rights as a moral or practical concept cannot violate other rights, otherwise it cannot be equally applied and therefore fails to be a right at all.

i dont understand how corruption is by definition external… corruption occurs within organizations and entites, public and private, all the time. it seems fundamentally INTERNAL to me, and stems from necessarily harmful incentives inherent within a system. if there is no real pressure preventing corruption in government healthcare (such as to be deliberately wasteful, because there is no personal harm associated with this if you are a politician who is guaranteed your income and care regardless of your efficient management of the system), then corruption will tend naturally to occur. please explain what you mean about the external nature of corruption.

people are not as reponsible with others lives or property as they are with their own, that is basic fact. and why should they be, it makes no sense biologically or psychologically. the fact is, that there needs to be something FORCING people to act in socially-“beneficial” ways when its not in their best interests directly. that is why socialist systems such as the UK are inherently unfree, and proceed to becomes less free over time.

as far as “american values”, i consider the value of your life, the value of being free to act and choose what you do with your life, and the value to spend your money in whatever way you wish as HUMAN values. america is (was) just the highest expression of the principles as of yet throughout history. it is my hope that after america fails, and after nwo hopefully fails in the end, that humanity will once again endeavor to establish a free system of political organization which recognizes and gives everyone the equal right to be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt harm another person. if it is the right to your life, your liberty, and the pursuit of your happiness, as well as the right to keep that which you own and earned and use it as you see fit, if THESE are what you call “american” values, then yes, i stand by american values 100%. however, america is far from perfect, and is becoming more and more like the UK every day, so i recognize that there are many problems with the american system and i am not uncriticaly defending it-- i am defending the basic HUMAN RIGHTS, the inherent values and requirements for man to live freely and happily on earth.

THAT is my objection to socialism in any form, any form of government coercion and slavery of the people to “public interest”, which is just a euphamism (however you spell it) for government authority and totalitarianism. there is no such thing as “public” interest, because there is no such thing an entity of the “public”, there are just individuals. that is why the TRUE “public interest” is served best and only by securing fundamental INDIVIDUAL rights for all individuals; and when you let those individual act as they see fit, give them freedom to determine their own existence, then everything tends to work for the better, because people make choices for themselves, and reap the benefits or harms of those choices, which is only natural. THAT is our natural human condition, to be free, and any form of collectivism is inherently unfree, as it subverts the individual to the will of the state authority.

the loss of freedom and the need to be enslaved to the state is necessary under any collectivist system; it is a natural consequence and outcomes of collevticist ideology, and healthcare is not an exception-- it is an exceptionally clear example of this fact.

Ok, this has got out of hand. I’m not going to be able to respond to this in full right now, but I want to clear up some misconceptions you have about my point-of-view.

First of all, and most importantly, I am NOT advocating greater government control. This is a point-of-view that exists within the straw man image of a socialist that you have devised: I am not that straw man and you have misread what I have said if you believe so. It seems that you take political labels as being absolutes, that if I am a “socialist” I advocate what all socialist parties everywhere have done. This is false. Likewise, you think that if I call you a “libertarian” that means you must associate with the Libertarian Party. This is wrong too (and I’m happy either way to accept I’ve mis-represented your political ideology, to the extent that you have one at all). Moreover, it’s why I tend to use these terms without capitalisation, to refer to a set of ideas rather than specific values. My approach to socialism is not the one you recognise because it does not advocate a universal force - government or the state - as the final and ultimate arbiter of values. Rather, it advocates society, or community if you prefer, understood as the free space for interactions between individuals. I agree that big government is a constraining, anti-democratic force, but I contend that it is an abstraction (and as it exists a misconceived one) of the true social relations that it is supposed to embody.

The second issue I want to raise relates closely to the first, and vice versa. Specifically, I think you have fundamentally misrepresented my advocation of collapsing the distinction between public and private. You think that means “submitting individual rights to the state”, but I explicitly rejected that. In fact, what I said was that “by neutralising the distinction the individual becomes the state, and vice versa”. This is admittedly complex and ostensibly paradoxical, but what it is pointing towards is a reconceptualisation of the sense of both the individual and the state so that those ideas provide a more accurate representation of the social inter-relationships in which they are generated. What is essential here is that communal action does not mean government action, it does not mean my abdication of communal responsibility to a bureaucratic mechanism of which I am not a part. Nor is it the advocation of a mechanistic, Borg-like hive mind. Government absolutism can be checked by the continued vigilant action of the people - the democratic principle - but from within and not without. Constitutional rights, on this reading, are a fundamental part of what makes up society.

This leads me directly onto my third point, which is that I do not reject the principle of “rights” per se. Instead, what I am rejecting is your self-ish conception of rights, that they can only be understood in respect of the individual. On this reading, rights involve the absolute protection of the individual from society, the assumption that the individual is the only locus of truth. I think this is wrong. Against it, I want to develop a sense of rights that is situated in the actual intersubjective relationships between individuals. I do not derive from this the view that free healthcare is a “right”, I would prefer to call it an aspiration. To elaborate, a system of free healthcare would be an expression of a number of basic rights, not the right in itself. Likewise, the state has no “right” to take anything from me - whether that be my time, my labour, my money or whatever. Instead, I freely choose to partake in the public sphere, in society (if I disagree with paying taxes, to give a real-world example, I could always leave and go somewhere that I don’t have to).

Fourthly, and more practically, I don’t think you’ve listened to what I’ve said about the UK. I live here, I have direct experience of the NHS and I know lots of people who work either in it or in relation to it (some of my nearest and dearest) and I can assure you that the view you have of it is a misconception. There is not a doctoring crisis in the NHS, in fact recruitment has increased dramatically of late and the UK attracts doctors (and nurses, for that matter) from around the world both to train and to work in its healthcare system. One of the areas where a problem in the UK healthcare system exists is, I agree, in the bureaucratic structures, but I reject the view that they all exist of necessity - for example, by returning the authority for decision-making back to the doctors, nurses and carers themselves some of this interference could be eradicated. This is part of what I mean by a sense of responsibility. Moreover, some of the accusations which you level at the public healthcare system in the UK could also be directed at the private system in the US too, such as doctors being forced to refuse to treat a patient (owing to insurance policy restrictions) or prospective doctors being dissuaded from joining the profession because of financial pressures (owing either to the cost of training or the risk of litigation). Neither system is perfect, which is why I’m looking to go beyond both.

As a final point of clarification I’d just like to say that I disagree that people need to be “forced” to act communally or altruistically. Rather, what I think they need is to be provided with spaces for genuinely communal or altruistic action - that is, they need opportunity, the ability to choose. I accept that existing socialist systems do not necessarily provide those spaces, but I would argue that those options are just as severely restricted within a private system based on the purity of the individual. What we need is a more integrated, holistic approach.

However, I do accept that I have not yet offered any specific practical measures that would deal with your important objection to the workability of my thesis. The reason for this is that I have simply not been able to consider that in significant detail as yet and I wanted first to respond to the theoretical inspiration that your initial post provided. I think it is important that we seek to understand the particular perspective that we each bring to the table, because otherwise continued discussion would be difficult. This requires a close reading and I hope you resist the temptation to ascribe to me a set of principles I do not recognise. Likewise, if you feel misrepresented in any way feel free to correct me, I’m here to learn. What I have presented here is only a perspective, nothing more. I do not expect you to accept it by any means, but I do think it is fair to ask you to characterise it as accurately as you are able. I make every effort in a post like this to choose my wording carefully and that effort becomes futile if the reader chooses not to pay attention to those terms.

we can agree to disagree… i have read reports online and in US newspapers about doctors leaving the UK and coming to america. i can get you specific info if youd like, but since you live there, im sure its either counter to your experience, or a part of the system that you accept as inevitable and ok; either way, its not going to get us to come to an agreement.

i accept that you like your NHS, and that you think it works well. i would like to ask what percentage of your personal taxes go to funding NHS, just out of curiosity. but other than that, your assessment of “rights” is certainly different than my own. you think that rights should apply to “relationships” between people, and to public sectors or “cumminities”, and i just have no idea what this means. there is only one living thing, one life, and that is the individual. i do understand that you are concerned about government oppression and growth, but i do not see how substituting government for “community values” or “public fleld” is anything but a euphamism. you seem to think that people need to be provided with “spaces” to act communally, but this has never been otherwise… even in a completely “selfish” (as you call it) system if INDIVIDUAL rights (me, me, me, as you aptly put it), there is infinite opportunity to work publically or in the community. we dont need laws to ENFORCE the possibility of “community space”, just like we dont need laws to MAKE people act altruistically-- all we need is constitutional guarantees to be left alone, to be free to act as we wish. thats all. once thats in place, some people will “selfishly” act in their best interest and work or spend their money on themselves and their wants/needs. some people will be “altruistic” and act selflessly, and give lots of their time and money away in charity or volunteer. thats perfectly fine.

i guess i dont understand your concept of community rights-- what does that even mean? what “rights” could a community, or a relation between people have? its not an entity, its a collection of entities. either way, though, we will not come to agreement. you believe that community and public action should be primary and that individualism and individual rights are “selfish”, and that a scenario of community action or altruism can sustain a “free” system such as NHS-- i disagree. for each of the reasons i cited in my OP about universal healthcare, i believe that it wont work, it cant work, it is immoral, and a gross encroachment upon our rights as free living beings. but you will not agree to that, and since theres no way to reconcile such differing paradigms, and since i dont think i can come to understand your concept of a “right”, perhaps this thread is better abandoned.

in addition, i just cannot grasp your concept of abolishing or merging the ideas of public and private-- maybe i have misunderstood, but if you want to clarify just what you mean, how this would work practically, i would appreciate it, but like i said, perhaps its better just left alone at this point.

btw, since you live in UK, do you know the rock band ‘Porcupine Tree’ ? if not, you should check them out, they are amazing, and theyre touring again soon with the release of their new album in march. just curious if youve heard of them, or if youre a fan. i am an obcessive fan.

Resistance is futile 3X. :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: :sci-fi-robot: