The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central This is the country I want

"Want a better education system? Then get rid of the federal education department and let individual states decide what's best for their local population."

Eh. . . no thanks on that one.

Left to its own devices, the Texas education system would become a very scary place indeed. Jesus would have single handedly smote the Indians while driving a Ford truck and drinking a beer.

Texas is a hard core bible-thumping state and the Texas Education Agency is pushing hard for creationism in school. If we go that route, I would ask the rest of the country to wall off this State and let none escape without testing them first :D


"Have you seen Texas uninsured figures? Something like mid -20%."

I would be curious if those figures included our MASSIVE undocumented population. If so, they're skewed somewhat. For an eye opener, go to the emergency room on a Weekend.

These are your undocumented folks who have crossed over the border looking for work. While they DO perform the work that most Americans will not do ( not enough pay ) the very same reason Americans don't do it is why they're in the emergency room to begin with.

The work they are performing does not pay well enough for them to afford any sort of health care to begin with. It's really that simple.

Some health plan monthly premiums I've seen EXCEED the entire paycheck of minimum wage earners. That's how out of whack it is.
Is it so shocking to wonder why they don't have insurance ?

THIS IS WHERE A PISS POOR EDUCATION SYSTEM WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD BTW.

No education or skills equates to minimum wage jobs for most. Minimum wage equates to piss poor quality of life. Health insurance for these folks is a luxury they cannot possibly afford.

If the minimum wage wasn't the poverty line, and was actually semi-decent, then perhaps they MIGHT have some health care of their own.

Bottom line is, if you don't pay folks a decent wage to live upon, then don't act surprised if they cut corners where they have to.

How one can someone from the same culture can call white black is beyond me. I realize morals are relative, but to me you are highly amoral person.

Society doesn't exist on its own, it has to be maintained with pooled resources. If this makes it slavery, then I am glad to be a slave.

Democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to protect it and make sure that your fellow members of society are not too hungry, too sick or out on the streets to meaningfully participate in it. If this makes it slavery, then I am glad to be a slave.

Opportunity to excel and to succeed is impossible without standing on shoulders of others, you succeed because others around you created an environment that enabled you to succeed. If contributing to environment that enables success is slavery, than I am glad to be a slave.

If you have such disdain for this slavery, then I invite you to immigrate to Somalia where you could be from all of the above.

This is even more laughable coming from someone such as yourself who believes that ends justify the means.



Society has existed for a long time before some people started deciding that health care was a natural right.



First of all, we live in a Republic not a democracy. Democracy itself is not inherently just, its actually two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Rules need to be established, reflecting principles that defend an individual's rights for a society to be just. Because society is comprised of individuals, so if individuals do not have rights.. noone has rights. Individual rights > mob rule.

People actively have partaken in society, and in politics for long before health care started being called a "right". So on the face of it, your implied assertion that health care needs to be a "right" for participatory society to function has no relevance in the face of centuries of historical fact contradicting you.



Fantastic and amazing societies have been built without health care being a "right". So, a non-sequitur here as well. Plus you seem to, as a concept, confuse society with government. The two are not the same. Society may have a responsibility morally to care for the unfortunate, and this responsibility may reflect on individuals who have a moral responsibility to help - but this is different than govt violence having moral authority to ensure such a thing.



Using this analogy improperly once again, apparently you do not learn from prior mistakes, or else you live in some sort of intellectual bubble.

You seem to think that the necessary level of collectivism required for the common good can be extended and expanded to encompass whatever arbitrary concept your whim deems necessary. Those who disagree with your arbitrary expansions are fit to be ridiculed as either insane, or amoral.

What a twisted worldview.

An honest question I have, is if education was decentralized... would Texas really end up as a "creationist state".. or are the bulk of the sensible residents just enjoying being lazy, by not participating in civil society using the excuse that "The FedGov will take care of it"?

I would expect that if the FedGov stopped acting as a crutch against a popularly reported idiocy, that the locals might finally start to realize the benefits of actually becoming involved. Its easy to stay uninvolved when it "doesnt directly affect you" and some amorphous , larger body is supposedly managing things.

Or in other words, the only way to motivate many good people to take action.. is to actually place the responsibility for their own well being on their own shoulders... and stop letting them pretend that someone else is or should be taking care of it for them.

You are talking to empty chairs here, again.



So you advocating Amish lifestyle? Sure, people lived in the wood shacks, died before 30th birthday and had 12 kids, with only about 4 making it to adulthood. I didn't know you were such a literal traditionalist. Even back in these days, a visit from a doctor to drain your excess humors would not bankrupt your family.



Are you familiar with hierarchy of needs? It is very basic concept that boils down to following conclusion - if you are hungry, homeless or too ill then you only capable caring about food, shelter or getting better. Participation in democracy does not come until all these basics are fulfilled. By denying these basics to a segment of your society you are denying them an opportunity to participate. While you convinced that healthcare is slavery, I am equally convinced that denying access to healthcare is voter suppression.



Then you turn around and deny the right to live healthily, free of medical-bill-bankruptcy? Deny it categorically, regardless of circumstances?!



Historically, access to a public highway wasn't a right ether, but I don't see modern society existing without such access. Or you also advocate that highway system should be reserved for a well-off segment of population that could afford to buy-in into the system?

Still, main difference, is that "historically" almost everyone had access to "historical" health care, and it did not bankrupt you. Nowadays, we get much better medicine, but system is set up in a way that there is no way to get some basic level of it - you ether buy into system, with all its "defensive medicine" excesses or you are left out of it. Why should it be a choice of leaving someone bleeding on the street or bankrupting them with medical bills? Why can't we have a universal and basic access to "we won't let you bleed to death, on the house" and what so monstrous about such system that you equate it to slavery?!



Yes indeed, what an arbitrary concept of not leaving people bleeding on the streets.

Haha, yeah you are correct - I am talking to an empty chair. You summed up trying to discuss things with you quite succinctly.

I need to go get lunch, but I will happily dissect the monstrosity of non sequiturs you just puked up once I grab my food. I mean seriously, you try to make a correlation between the principle of rule of law over mob rule equating "denying others the right to live healthily" ? It would be laughable if you didnt take yourself so seriously.

My advice to you though in the mean time: before daring to insult others, actually get the slightest clue about whether, how, and when things actually logically connect.

Also, you do make one good point - health care used to be available and not bankrupt people. You might want to ask yourself what changed. In theory at that point, you would investigate.. and you would find that govt involvement in health care changed , and is the root cause of said problem.

I fully expect you to intentionally keep yourself ignorant though, and continue advocating importing more bears to deal with the lion problem.

It would be fool's laughter.

Concept of accessible healthcare is not so arcane that partisan ideologues like you would not be capable of understanding it.

They are:

1. Healthcare, a basic need, take precedence over higher-order necessities. Without satisfying basic necessities there is no way we can guarantee higher-order necessities, like an ability to participate in democratic process. Since we agree that ability to participate in our democratic process has to be protected, we also have to remove issues that impede it. Fail to do so undermines the very foundation of our democratic process.

2. It is both practical and cost effective to enable all-inclusive access to health care. People priced out of the system still end up using it to some degree (emergency rooms and so on) but in ineffective manner, and this increases overall cost to society.

3. Pure market forces are unable to regulate health care system, there is clearly no price point that would suppress demand, the only control on whole system is % of people getting priced out of the system. This is undesirable and ineffective way to control the system.

Now I spelled out the argument for you, have a go at it.

If you are not up for the challenge you can always continue talking to Clint's empty chair.

Ok, first off - you insulted the Amish. Unlike you, I actually have met and known Amish and Mennonite people.... and they dont typically "die at 30", have 12 kids, or live in "shacks". Sure, they have a different lifestyle than you or I, but I have found them to be polite, industrious, clever in the application of technology (yeah they live "off grid" and have at time seemingly odd religious regulations about tech, but that doesnt mean they are primitives... you should see some of the innovative steam powered heat pumps, or greenhouse cooling systems they have engineered.) and generally healthy. Their agriculture practices help keep them such, using time tested methods for producing and preserving food combined with an active lifestyle.

Your insulting them simply because they have a different world view than you, simply highlights a high degree of arrogance and ignorance.

-

Next, your misuse of hierarchy of needs. You are trying to seriously say that people do not participate in civic life unless they are full and perfectly healthy? Pick up a history book sometime, I beg of you. I would however agree that govt should facilitate the ability of the populace to be full and healthy - I just think your means are ineffective, and your presentation and the way you advocate those means even worse.

-

You try to say I would deny people these basics? I would deny people nothing. Why would I wish to interfere with other people obtaining such things? You seem to equate not wanting to abdicate my own moral obligation, and instead transfer it to a large Federal Govt as denial of service. Obviously, this is a fallacy.

-

Going even further.. you try to assert that I think healthcare is slavery? Your lack of reading and comprehension skills are showing again. I said and say that using violence to force provisioning of said services arbitrarily based on mob opinion is slavery. For you to take it a step further and claim that this is voter suppression suggestions you do not know the working definition of the word "suppression".

-

Public highways are a bad analogy for several reasons.

1) The original intent was military. So they serve a larger purpose than just convenience.

2) Highways are largely, and should be, paid for with usage fees and taxes. Things like costs of drivers licenses, car plates, and etc. You mostly can, and *should be able to* opt out of the bulk of those expenses. It actually is possible to not own a car. Transportation companies pay large fees for transporting good on highways, which is fine.

-

Now, at the end of your post you get into the good stuff. Suddenly the type of health care you are talking about goes from providing all services to all people.... to "not letting people bleed in the streets".

Previously, it had all been about good or poor general health. Now it is suddenly an emotional appeal regarding acute trauma? So which is it? Cant you at least maintain some sort of consistency for one short post? Or are you actually incapable of discerning the difference between a societal mentality of not letting people bleed to death.... and a massive Govt apparatus that forces the provision of care for all, even long term self-inflicted ills as you were previously advocating in your posts?

Talk about disingenuous.

But still, there is a difference between the things an individual has a *right* to and the things one is generally morally obligated to provide. However, you seem to think that these things need to be dealt with at by an unaccountable FedGov , instead of by civic society.

Apparently you trust unaccountable bureaucrats, but people who would have a representative body that was accountable deal with these types of baseline standard of services - and determine locally the means to provide them - are all amoral crazies.

I find it ironic, because in my experience the lefties are most often the ones who most resent their moral obligations. They cannot bear the thought of providing to "the unwashed masses" unless they are comforted by the fact that men with guns (though they claim to hate guns) ensure that everyone else is as well. So out of their desire to offload their own responsibility onto others, they take a faux moralist position that the proper way to give back to society is by abandoning personal responsibility and simply forcing everyone to pay taxes toward a problem that "someone else now can deal with". Whereas many other people prefer to use their resources to take a personal hand in civic life and personally allocate their own resources based on their own judgement and involvement.

So, they confuse the faux morality of using violence to attempt to mold society according to their whim with taking responsibility for their own personal morality. Because it sure is a lot more convenient to grandstand on a supposed moral superiority than it is to actually take part in civic life, isn't it? Get to comfort that self-righteous ego, while still not having to pay social problems any additional thought beyond one liners that make you look good at a cocktail party - plus the added comfort that noone is getting ahead of you in life because armed thugs are making sure everyone else is "contributing" at least as much as you.

How convenient it is to be a lefty.

Interesting you call *me a partisan ideologue...

And unlike you, I actually understand multiple and opposing viewpoints whereas your worldview seems to be entirely two dimensional. Understanding a concept, or an asserted application of a concept is not the same as agreeing with it or agreeing with the application, which is something you seem to have troubles with.

After all.. your response to "health care is not a natural right" is....... "Somalia". Think about that for a second. Seriously.

As far as capability for understanding..... I have had to correct you or explain just about every topic or concept we have discussed. Someone who has proven themselves so utterly incapable of actually applying words or concepts correctly, should refrain from insulting those who actually have to tutor them on almost every topic.

Now as for correcting your latest broadside - I shall begin:

1) You claim healthcare is a basic need. You claim this basic need is required to be met to participate in democratic process. However, the way you state this falsely implies that an all-encompassing FedGov healthcare plan needs to be in place to properly provide this level of health provision.

You provide no evidence of fact or logic to identify what level of health is required to participate or what level of care is required to meet that metric... and boy, you have to be pretty ill to not be able to show up to townhalls or vote. Countless people with various serious illnesses are on record as having been politicians... let alone participating in civic life. Also, even if we accept your misuse of hierarchy of needs for the sake of this discussion - my stance is that reforming govt *out of the healthcare business to a large degree would enable cheaper and more widely available care. After all, things that govt heavily subsidizes have been empirically shown to become dramatically more expensive. Govt simply introduces market distortions, but until you realize that - you cannot even begin to start thinking up ways to help ensure a level of services without introducing or managing market distortions of price and availability. Thus, economic efficiency will fall leading those like yourselves to inevitably call for more govt control... which further separates provision of services from rational and objective valuation mechanisms (free market) leading to further inefficiency and eventual breakdown.

2. Your second point is a simple false assertion. You will likely try to justify it with an observation that preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency room care after a would-be minor problem has become a major one. This in of itself is true, and proves that the current status quo is inefficient. What it does not prove however, is that your model of universal care is any better - because systems need to be evaluated independently and in the entirety of their effects, so until you can accurately model a universal system wholly - you cannot make an assumption that such a system would actually address this or any other issue sufficiently.

3. Well, in a free market the providers of services have financial incentive to not price people out of a system. Also, I have always left open possibility of some level of public service - however the logical way to address this issue is at a more local level, since the economic realities of supply and demand of various types of services can vary widely by location. Even the Social-corporatist states like Sweden that have socialistic systems that dont malfunction as badly as other examples of central health planning (though they do have serious issues as I have demonstrated here previously) do almost all of their actual health planning and allocation on a very local level. Which is the complete opposite of anything proposed by you or the general "left" in this country where the focus is on Federal level planning and allocation.