DescentBB

The tax payers are being required to fork over money to help pay for this â??Star Warsâ?

this is the reason why I would not like to live in the US. Coming from Germany, where health care is almost free (although it becomes less free every year), the thought of risking the wealth you have managed to raise over your life (which is not much anyways) in one accident/illness is just too scary.

and I clearly see the irony you pointed out --- but i guess I don't need to mention this as an European.

Go ★■◆● to Congress.

And you're completely wrong about "we let poor people go home and die." New York State law, for example, stipulates that a hospital is NOT allowed to refuse treatment to anyone, even if they can't pay.

The left-wing venom drips from my monitor, burning holes in my keyboard. As I turn to Gooberman, I see that he has dropped the facade to show his true form.

Defense programs such as Star Wars are NOT meant to protect the average citizen. They are meant to protect the GOVERNMENT. Second to that is the government's job to protect the citizenry.

So um, when did the people stop being the government? You know, "by the people, for the people?" Is that gone now?

Four years ago?

Also, you may not like it DCrazy, but you live in one of the more (most?) liberal states in the union. So citing "New York State law" as representing the country wont get you anywhere. I am also willing to bet that your law has to do with immediate treatment (bullet wound, car crash, etc.), not long term treatment, like organ transplants etc. Maybe not in New York, that would be good to hear.

And yes, on free health care, I am "Michael Moore"-liberal.

I'm Canadian so this is all preaching to the converted.

America is more than just 250 million people on the same land mass. The government's repsonsibility is to make sure that it still exists tomorrow in order to provide for Americans. It's the whole "America is more than the sum of its parts" argument. "By the people, for the people" is not the same as "is the people".

And you may not like living where you live, Gooberman. That's the beauty of the United States: different states have different laws.

I have to agree with gooberman. The governments primary job should be to work to ensure the general well being of ALL people of the United States, not just the rich and the government itself. I believe it lists something like that in the preamble, or maybe that was just put there by some ugly liberals.

If you want to start talking about the constitution, we could start with the second amendment...

heh, why not start with the....first? I think that over the generations some how certain conservatives have never been able to let go that the second amendment wasn't listed first.

"Lets get our guns, then talk about free speech!"

but back on topic...

Considering they're all equal your argument makes no sense. Besides, I'm sure we can agree on the existence of the first amendment. Some people like to deny the existence of the second.

Bringing the second amendment into this thread made no sense. I was pointing that out

The government's responsibility is to protect America, and keep it free. What Americans do with that freedom is no business of the government's. If we could get away from being so high on ourselves, we might actually start giving surplus money to charity instead of stockpiling it where it won't do any good. For crying out loud, if you're so concerned about a homeless person on the streets, go give him $100! Or better yet, help him out. Figure out what he's good at, and help him locate a job that matches those skills. It's not the government's job to protect each individual citizen. If it is the government's job, why do all the liberals whine and complain when the government passes things like the Patriot act (besides the fact that Bush implemented it)? If it's the government's job to protect each citizen, then the government has to know pretty much everything about that citizen. The government SHOULD NOT be sticking its nose in our lives. That's what the welfare program is all about. Take from the rich, give ot the poor. It's sad that things have degenerated this far. The rich should be GIVING to the poor WILLINGLY (as many of them do) instead of simply hoarding money "for a rainy day."

Stryker, do you disagree that there is a vast difference between the government comming to see if your sick, and someone going to the government and saying, "hey, I'm sick!"?

I see the difference: the second is the preferable one.

And I brought the second amendment into the argument since people love to tell other people what "by the people, for the people" means, just to remind them that the constitution is a Pandora's box.

It's the govt's job to take care of the people. What this entals depends on your Gov't and your form of Gov't(Communism, Democracy etc). I enojoy the free health care not matter what injury it is. Yes, I pay more taxes than people in the US but at least I don't have to worry about being refused treatment if I get injured.

It is upto the people of the US to complain enough to their gov't to force them to make the changes for you. Remember, the gov't is working for you and YOU and only YOU have the power to change it. If you are unwilling to do anything about it, STFU and learn to deal with it. Otherwise, start doing something about it.

Stryker wrote:If it is the government's job, why do all the liberals whine and complain when the government passes things like the Patriot act (besides the fact that Bush implemented it)?

We whine because he Patriot act gives unconstitutional and orwellian-like powers to the justice department, power that is used pretty much only to protect the governments interests and the interests of their corporate sponsors.

Even though the federal government is supposed to protect us as a whole (borders/aggression from outside forces) and not as individuals (that's our job as citizens)....

We do have free health care unless you are rich...then you must pay. Quite the opposite from what has been stated here!

Many Canadians come here for quality health care because their government sponsored healthcare leaves a lot to be desired...

There are virusus attacking the rich and the poor, like
AID's for example.
Now go add up all the money the U.S. spends on fighting these diseases and compare it to all those other countries you think have a better system or do more to protect their citizens from disease.

Just because we spend alot/too much on defense doesn't mean we don't spend the same way on healthcare.
And just like the enemy in warfare the enemy in disease control can't be beaten with just money.

Sure there is room for improvement but trying to juxtapose defense with healthcare is a political shell game. The whole premise stinks of DNC class warefare rhetoric.

I'm spoiled by our second-to-none health care system. In fact, people here in Belgium take it for granted. The thing is, in order to be able to do things like free health care and free education, you not only need to cut in military and defense budgets, but you will need to raise taxes as well.

It is true that putting the money in the right place can save more lives than it does at the moment, but there's always the public opinion. When thousands of innocents die in a terrorist attack, the public opinion is infuriated several orders of magnitude more than because of the death of tens of thousand who do not get proper treatment due to lack of money ("it's their problem etc."). So the government does whatever to please the public opinion.

In Belgium, we mostly agree to pay 54% wage taxes, and then another 21% taxes when we buy something, because we live in a system that's different of yours. If you have four kids, you can put them all through basic school, highschool and university for virtually nothing. A year at the respectable Ghent university costs like 400 bucks, regardless what subjects you take. You pay through your nose if you want to give your four kids top education in the US.

I'm biased of course, but unless I'm filthy rich I prefer the Belgian way over the American one.

Tricord, I don't think america can afford a 75% tax and if we did we would have to cut a lot of foriegners off from suckling at our teats and let them die.

Funny thing is, if we decided to copy the Belgiun model and cut everyone off to afford the "better" system we would be accused of being selfish.

In responce to Wills first post.

According to the World Health Organization the US is ranked #1 in health care that an individual can recieve, if he can afford it. When it comes to the equal distribution of health care we are ranked #54th. Our overall rating is 37th in health care.

Yes, a very wealthy Canadian would come to the U.S. for health care. A poor Canadian wouldn't come here "if his life depended on it"!

We may not have the best health care in the world, but we do have awesome doctors. I know for one that we have the best surgeon for colon cancer patients here in Ontario. We also have one of the best medical universitiy with McGill in Montreal.

Also, as long as I get treatment, I'm not to worried about not having the best. That is the trade off of getting free health care.

Also, like Tricord said, we also get free education or very cheap. My tuition for college is just over 200$/yr. University would cost about double that. I remember a friend on Kali telling me it cost him $5000 for delivering a baby. Here, it's free.

I'm happy I live here and I don't take it for granted by bitching about taxes because I know it's the only way the Gov't can afford paying for those luxeries.

CDN_Merlin wrote: I don't take it for granted by bitching about taxes because I know it's the only way the Gov't can afford paying for those luxeries.

Thank you... the central point of the argument.

Gooberman wrote:When it comes to the equal distribution of health care we are ranked #54th.

Be careful the conclusions you draw from your stats.
Considering we also have the "#1" ranking for available care it stands to reason that there would be a larger gap between the best care one could recieve for a price, and the best care one could get for free!

If your country only offers mediocre care at best but offers it freely to all then yes, you distribute health care more equally, but you are still distributing mediocrity!
Perhaps the quality of the free health care in the U.S. is actually better than the health care in most of the countries that distribute their 'best' to everyone for free. Of the 53% who are more equal in their distribution how many really offer quality health care like the Belgians do? You might find we rank a lot higher if you also consider the 'quality' of the care that is distributed!

I'd like to know how the W.H.O. avoids the apples and oranges scenario I outlined above. And of course, like I mentioned before, Belgium probably does provide better health care apples to apples but will america and the rest of the world stand by while we re-allign our priorities to put americans health care above other endeavors?

In order to afford the Belgian model we would have to abandon many things that the Belgians don't pay for...the security of other nations...the feeding of other nations...etc. etc. Because if you try to keep all other things equall but just raise the tax rate to 75% like the Belgians pay you will do a lot more than just take from the rich. You will stomp the economy into the ground and that will hurt people around the globe!

The government's primary safety concern is for it's highest ranking members (President, Congress, Senators) and the rich (Who own the President, Congress and Senators). It's secondary concern is the citizenry.
The healthcare issue is totally irrelevant. If you think otherwise...why are cigarettes legal? Ahem...(Hint: It's good business for the healthcare industry).

Stryker wrote: That's what the welfare program is all about. Take from the rich, give ot the poor.

Incorrect, it's 'Take from the average, skim about 40%+, and give the rest to the poor.'

The governments job is not to protect the individual, it's to protect society as a whole.

B-

Stryker wrote:What Americans do with that freedom is no business of the government's.

Exactly. Which is why if I wan't to keep my humderd bucks instead of giving it to a homeless guy, it is my right to do so. I have a mortgage to pay and food to buy. He doesn't.

Stryker said:
"It's not the government's job to protect each individual citizen. If it is the government's job, why do all the liberals whine and complain when the government passes things like the Patriot act (besides the fact that Bush implemented it)?"

It *is* the government's job to protect each individual citizen. That's why we fight wars. That's why we pass laws like the seatbelt law.

Second, have you even read the patriot act? There are clear intellectual reasons to disagree with it, but it seems you listen to too much Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage. The Patriot act is the first step towards 1984/Big Brother. Under the veil of the war on terror any person that is deemed an "enemy combatant" or terror suspect can be indefinitely held without a trial, their home could be searched/bugged without their knowledge, etc. That's just giving up too much freedom, IMO. It's not been widely abused as of yet but it's certainly a scary thought in a country where innocent until proven guilty, search warrants and other things of the like used to be the standard.

Dcrazy said:
"If you want to start talking about the constitution, we could start with the second amendment..."

A very silly dodge/redirect. It's undeniable that liberal politicians look out more for the poor people. You can see it in tax plans, health care plans, and the like. Conservatives have the philosophy of "It's not my problem you're poor, get a job" so all you can do is shift the subject to the gun control. Hah.

Dcrazy said:
""By the people, for the people" is not the same as "is the people". "

No, actually, it is. We are the government. Our elected officials are extensions of individual citizens. Our votes turn into representations of us.

Will said:
"We do have free health care unless you are rich...then you must pay. Quite the opposite from what has been stated here! "

To some extent, that is true. No issue is black and white. The poor will be treated at an ER if they do not have any coverage. However, they do not get regular doctor's visits. They do not have dentist visits, or eye care. They frequently cannot afford prescription drugs. The issue is much more complicated than it seems. Personally, I'd drop defense spending by a good 50% and save tens of thousands more lives at home on health care and safety at home.

Will said:
"Sure there is room for improvement but trying to juxtapose defense with healthcare is a political shell game. The whole premise stinks of DNC class warefare rhetoric. "

What class warefare rhetoric? It seems very simple to me. Democrats are willing to help the poor get basic health care. Republicans are of the "get a job, self reliance" school of thought. They don't believe being handed something helps someone out of poverty. It's still quite obvious that democrats care more about the poor than the republicans. Check your taxes, check your health care plans. Proof is in the bills.

Maybe care is the wrong word--I'm sure republicans care, they just don't seem to inact as much legislation to help poor people.

Will said:
"Tricord, I don't think america can afford a 75% tax and if we did we would have to cut a lot of foriegners off from suckling at our teats and let them die. "

I agree. That's doesn't actually compute to 75%, but you're about on the mark--america couldn't survive with that kind of tax rate. It would drive out business. I don't mean to imply that we should drop billions on health care necessarily, but I do believe more lives could be saved by taking a chunk of the defense budget and putting it into helping people at home.

Will said:
"Perhaps the quality of the free health care in the U.S. is actually better than the health care in most of the countries that distribute their 'best' to everyone for free"

Based on what, your armchair quarterbacking with no stats to back it?

Barry said:
"The governments job is not to protect the individual, it's to protect society as a whole."

Ah, doing things FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE, right? That's similar to the philosophical underpinnings of fascism. What happened to majority rules, but minority rights?

Birdseye wrote:Will said:
"Perhaps the quality of the free health care in the U.S. is actually better than the health care in most of the countries that distribute their 'best' to everyone for free"

Based on what, your armchair quarterbacking with no stats to back it?

Not 'based on' anything. I'm not stating a fact.
I said "perhaps...." the point being we probably don't rank nearly so low as 54th if you throw out the countries who do distribute equally *but* are distributing a substandard care equally.

Just trying to point out the apples to oranges that those rankings don't account for.

Ah, doing things FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE, right? That's similar to the philosophical underpinnings of fascism. What happened to majority rules, but minority rights?

Brian, Right! I'm not suggesting that it should be that way, I'm simply saying that it is. Local government is a reflection of state/national goverment and it's quite obvious that the goverment is not obligated to protect any one citizen, rather, society as a whole. You'll find this is true if you do some research on something as local as the obligation of the police department to protect you.

If you're interested I can dig up 30-40 cases all within the past 5-7 years where the courts have determined that the government has no obligation... unless you're in their custody.



B-

First of all, my red herring was really a red flag, warning just how sticky Constitutional interpretation can be.

Birdseye wrote:

DCrazy wrote: "By the people, for the people" is not the same as "is the people".

No, actually, it is. We are the government. Our elected officials are extensions of individual citizens. Our votes turn into representations of us.

No it's not. This is where you confuse a democracy with a representative government. The people elect representatives who work for a majority of the people whom they represent. This is much different from individuals working in government for themselves.

America is more than the 250 million American citizens. America is a philosophy (just like every other nation out there). America has intangibles as well as tangibles that are outside the scope of domestic services, such as foreign aid, diplomatic and economic relations, and culture.

You are absolutely correct in your "good of the state" observation. America's primary objective is to keep America going, much like the primary objective of your business is to stay in business. If your sole motivation were to feed yourself for the day, you wouldn't be around for long. I always liken America to a business; America is in the business of selling benefits to Americans. You pay the government with your taxes. If you want to buy more, you have to spend more (tax hikes). America is in business with other businesses/countries. In order to remain competetive and functional, America has to be sure that it will exist tomorrow. Otherwise, there's always the question: are we done? Have we accomplished the goal of America? When we've reduced unemployment to 3%, is the job finished? When we've fed everyone in the street, can America shut down? Does the government get to retire when every American has 2 Mercedes and a 2-acre plot? No, the government's challenge is to make sure it's still there tomorrow, and the only way to be sure of that is to work today.

Where our society differs from Fascism is in the business the government conducts. America sells benevolence; Nazi Germany sold subjugation.

I read about a case in CA a while back where someone had fallen off either a bridge or a cliff, the CA highway patrol had been called to the scene where they made no attempt to save the person in trouble, and then, when sued, the courts said that they were under no obligation to serve and protect that citizen, thus they were not sueable. Words cannot describe the degree of disgust I felt that day. The Government is supposed to be there to protect America and by connection, Americans. Those officers and that judge should be strung up by their testicles and left to be pecked at by hungry crows.

Ever hear of Good Samaritan laws? There was a time when if a doctor saw a car accident and went to assist the victim(s) s/he could be sued if the victim(s) didn't make a full recovery.

The good Samaritan law(s) still has some serious gray areas that people should be aware of.

In trying to piece together a common thread in this discourse, it appears that once all the hype and rhetoric has been skimmed off, to be a disagreement whether a democratically elected governmentsâ?? primary function is to:- a) first and foremost defend themselves and their electoratesâ?? or, b) to provide among other things, for the health, education and welfare of the selfsame electoratesâ???
Seen simplistic like this the answer is obvious.
If this was Oz and we were all good little Munchkins the answer would be a clear (b). But we happen to be living in the real world; therefore you canâ??t have (b) without (a).
This especially in a world where Greed and Envy, wrapped in political or religious rhetoric and hiding under various dogmas, seems to be the rule rather then the exception.

Barry said:
"Local government is a reflection of state/national goverment and it's quite obvious that the goverment is not obligated to protect any one citizen, rather, society as a whole. You'll find this is true if you do some research on something as local as the obligation of the police department to protect you."

Actually, as far as I can tell local government is quite different. It seems much more responsive to needs and concerns of the average person. The police department will frequently spend thousands of dollars protecting someone around the clock if a cross has been burned in their lawn by the KKK, or other similar things. That's protecting a single person. The government, I agree, favors society as a whole, but there is ample evidence of protection for individuals.

Barry Said:
"If you're interested I can dig up 30-40 cases all within the past 5-7 years where the courts have determined that the government has no obligation..."

I'd be interested in a couple in different genres of case. I think the problem with our discussion here is we're both being a little too black and white.


Dcrazy said:
"The people elect representatives who work for a majority of the people whom they represent. This is much different from individuals working in government for themselves."

Well, that's actually exactly what I said in my post. I guess it's just how you look at it. I look at a representive democracy as being the people, even if we are just electing who we want to represent us. We all also vote for initiatives in our states and changes to the constitution. The people are intrinsically intertwined in our government.

Dcrazy said:
" I always liken America to a business..."

Then you are concerned to the massive national debt and irresponsible deficit spending of the bush administration and the republican presidents in their last four terms?

"When we've reduced unemployment to 3%, is the job finished?"

I'd say yes in terms of employment. 3% would widely be thought of as "full employment" in economics-speak.

By the way DC, you pretty much ignored the points in my post.

I get your thing about America needing to be around tomorrow, as touching as it was, but I don't really see what point you were trying to make in regards to goob's thread topic.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197.

Here's but a few, Brian. Enjoy!

B-

The police department will frequently spend thousands of dollars protecting someone around the clock if a cross has been burned in their lawn by the KKK, or other similar things. That's protecting a single person.

That's responding to an incident, which is what the police are in fact required to do. The crime was committed, the reaction is that the police investigate and apprehend (if they can). They are 'serving', not 'protecting' (even tho' it looks like protecting).

The police are only obligated do something once something happens.

Until the police are capable of attaching trackers to our brains to know when we are thinking about committing a crime, the police will remain a reactionary force.

The police will concentrate manpower in high-crime areas as a preventative, not a reactive, measure.
However, they are not obligated to protect any *one citizen*. They are only obligated to protect the community as a whole by doing what they can to capture criminals and enforce laws. So, they can't be legally obligated to *prevent crime* even though they often do since they can't capture anyone or enforce a law until *after* a law is broken.

They are both a deterence to crime and mechanism to reduce the ratio of criminals to law abiding citizens. That is the protection they offer, your individual safety is primarily your responsibility.

"the rich stay healthy, the sick stay poor".

That's the same just about everywhere Gooberman. With the possible exception of welfare states like Sweden, Germany, New Zealand et al.

Your evaluation of the health care in the USA if flawed however. As with ALL things, medical treatment is bound by the laws of economics.

It may surprise you to learn that the most common surgical procedure in the USA is the Triple Heart Bypass. This is a VERY expensive surgical procedure, typically coming in at around 50K USD. It is usually performed on people who are old and unlikely to ever be able to repay the debt too.

There is a set of tables regarding who should get what treatments based on age and general health. And sad to say - YES - it's possible to save more people than currently get saved - but at what cost?

There are treatments to keep people alive that cost thousands of dollars a month, but no country can afford to support significant percentages of the population in this way.

There are unlimited demands on the health system in any country, and limited resources. Of course, the rich are going to get better treatment - but there's nothing new or unusual about that.

Moral: if you want to live a long and healthy life - get rich!