I really don't get this attitude some Americans have that any kind of public service designed to make the lives of your less fortunate peers just that little bit easier is some how a bad thing. It's as if 70 years of brainwashing that all "commies" are evil has irreparably warped their brains and now any piece of legislation that doesn't propose proverbially kicking struggling families in the "nuts" is seen as socialism and, by extension, wrong.
Capitalism is all well and good so long as peoples lives are not put in danger; and I'm not talking about luxuries here, I'm talking about whether people live or die. But what we have happening instead is a closed market dominated by a small number of monopolistic drug companies who abuse patent systems and extort their customers just because they can. Surely at some point, even the right-wings have to appreciate that neither closed markets nor putting peoples lives put in danger because of the greed of the few is neither in the spirit of capitalism nor the Christian thing to do (and I only reference the last part because of the emphasis that many right-wings place on religion).
- You have the RIGHT to education in the United States.
- You do NOT have the RIGHT to be alive to be educated.
* Additionally, you MUST treat someone in the ER if they are dying, but if they will be dying a week from now, send them on their way.
That is one thing I give to hardcore libertarians, they seem monstrous at times (no public schools, let sick people without insurance die, can't afford food then starve, etc) --- but at least they are consistent and honest. Also, they will claim that private companies / charities will stop this horrible stuff from happening.
>(no public schools, let sick people without insurance die, can't afford food then starve, etc)
Just want to emphasize (I see your little tacked-on afterthought there) that just because a libertarian doesn't believe the money to do these things should be forcibly extracted from the taxpayer's pocket doesn't mean that they believe people should be left to die. They simply trust non-governmental entities to capably care for their fellow men. It's about the proper role of government, not Darwinism.
As an example, consider Social Security. The government told us that they needed to save our money for us, since we were too stupid to do it ourselves. And now they've spent it all. lol?
> I really don't get this attitude some Americans have that any kind of public service designed to make the lives of your less fortunate peers just that little bit easier is some how a bad thing.
I think the problem is we like to have the freedom to select our charities (and charitable giving amount) rather than have them forced upon us by statute.
It's not a charity though. It's about providing a minimum service for people. Even with "free" health care in the UK, it's not free (it's paid for via National Insurance taxes and many facets still have additional costs (prescriptions, regular dressings, dentistry, etc) albeit often highly subsidised.
Surely it's better to have a subsidised minimum service than to rely on charities?
And more over, if your objection is purely because you don't want to be told that you should look after your fellow Americans, then that's either a really sad representation of how little respect Americans have for their kin, or the facet of a childish mentality where kids deliberately disobey their parents because they like to test their boundaries. Either way, it's just a terrible attitude to have.
Government-sponsored monopolies produce economy-wrecking effects. National health systems are that.
How to fix the American health system in several easy steps, from a governmental perspective:
* Stop all current governmental subsidies
* Outlaw medical insurance
* Purchase expensive medical equipment, and most importantly the means of production of such equipment, and resell to new medical enterprises at a reasonable price (most likely resulting in a severe loss)
* Provide a matching program on qualifying doctors' medical school debt
* Radically reform and/or remove medical licensing programs to focus on apprenticeship more than academics
* Reform pharmaceutical patent protections to allow drugs to proliferate freely
This will get us to a ground-up, self-sustainable medical system that is based on ordinary rules of supply and demand, without giving a blank check to the administrators of the current system, which is already irrevocably corrupted by paper-pushers. The whole thing just has to be torn down and started over.
In an ideal world I'd probably agree with you. But what you're proposing is even less likely to happen (particularly the pharmaceutical patent reform) that a national health system.
> Surely it's better to have a subsidised minimum service than to rely on charities?
No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized, if they want to continue to operate they need to prove to contributors that their contribution is going to the cause to the extent that a market critical mass of contributors cares to know.
> if your objection is purely because you don't want to be told that you should look after your fellow Americans, then that's either a really sad representation of how little respect Americans have for their kin, or the facet of a childish mentality where kids deliberately disobey their parents because they like to test their boundaries. Either way, it's just a terrible attitude to have.
Effigies should only be burned in street protests when there are teeming masses to rile up. They are less effective in print.
> No. Charities have to maintain efficiency because they are not subsidized, if they want to continue to operate they need to prove to contributors that their contribution is going to the cause to the extent that a market critical mass of contributors cares to know.
Having worked for a number of charities, I can promise you that not all charities are efficient. In fact some are even worse for wasting money than government bodies.
What's more, most people pay even less attention to just how efficiently their money is put to use in charities because: 1) it's considered bad etiquette to question charitable organisations, 2) it's assumed that charities are full of volunteers working for free on a shoe string budget out of the goodness of their hearts.
The reality is, many charities are run as businesses - with high paid salaries and paid expenses just like any other business. Obviously I don't want to tar all charities with the same brush, however my experiences certainly call BS to your generalisations.
> Effigies should only be burned in street protests when there are teeming masses to rile up. They are less effective in print.
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I'm assuming you're objecting to my comment, but given the brevity of your previous post and the context of my comment that preceded it; it's hardly surprising that I took your reply to mean what I suggested it may have meant.
However with you now expanding on your point, I now realise that your lack of comradeship is based on blissful ignorance rather than pure selfishness (though I suspect there's an element of selfishness driving the lack of motivation to investigate this topic otherwise you'd be advocating people giving up their free time caring for the less fortunate rather than complaining about who gets your money)
> Surely it's better to have a subsidised minimum service than to rely on charities?
See, it depends on who you are. If you are a well-connected member of the political class you prever to give charity because it's you who directs the flow of money. If you are part of the unwashed masses you prefer a subsidy, because there is the democratic process involved, and experts in public policy and the general public might have influence what is done with the funds.
> That is a fancy way of saying "we don't like to share".
I like to share with my family, not the collective mass of Americans who make less than me; whose sole claim for charity is that they make less than me.
One 'good' thing about the Cold War was that it 'put the fear of Communism' in the heart of every Commie-fearing capitalist.
We had a moral obligation to be seen as and actually provide a better life than that experienced by those behind the Iron Curtain. We had to pay attention to the negative aspects of market-based economics and at least attempt to mitigate these problems.
It also showed people what 'real' communism looked like. It's big joke that people think we're measurably closer to anything resembling socialism.
The idea that capitalism itself is a moral end to achieve in and of itself, regardless of the reality, seems to have taken root. People who are left worse off are dismissed as stupid and lazy.
As someone with an economics background I'm strongly in favor of markets and capitalism, but it's worrying when people forget that the strength of this way is based upon the health of the economic institutions that enable it to function.
Right, markets are an institution but not the only one. It's a problem that people forget and think it is only one we need.
Economic institutions encompass everything that allow it to function including basic ideas like private property rights, rules and regulations that enforce contracts, and functions that account for the welfare of people.
Markets are what people with diverse motivations and rights to dispose of their property "do" when they wish to dispose of their property (or deliver services) or when they wish to acquire new property or have services performed. The market as a concept isn't something handed down by the gods, nor instituted by decree.
I agree that there are other concepts that dispose of people's "property" and require them to seek or deliver services; in the past we called them things like theft, war, and slavery.
Capitalism is all well and good so long as peoples lives are not put in danger; and I'm not talking about luxuries here, I'm talking about whether people live or die. But what we have happening instead is a closed market dominated by a small number of monopolistic drug companies who abuse patent systems and extort their customers just because they can. Surely at some point, even the right-wings have to appreciate that neither closed markets nor putting peoples lives put in danger because of the greed of the few is neither in the spirit of capitalism nor the Christian thing to do (and I only reference the last part because of the emphasis that many right-wings place on religion).