Police_Fire Versus Healthcare

[Spock]

Frogman said>>>So my question is in what way is health care socialism if government gets involved but police and fire isn't? Why do those who are screaming socialism at everything President Obama is doing not screaming about those services? Finally, do you think having knee-jerk reactions (which I believe yelling socialism is) is productive and adds to the dialog?

BTW, those aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know.<<<<

I pulled this out of the other thread to separate it from the Limbaugh stuff.

I have been thinking about this for a little while and I think the fundamental difference (for me, anyway) is that essential services-police, fire, defense et al-do not turn free men into Wards of the State.

OTOH, Socialized medicine will turn us all into Wards of the State. Medicare has already done that for a large portion of the population.

Over the last few months, the best description I can come up with of my political philosophy is that I oppose policies that turn people into wards of the state.

[silverscreenselect]

I have been thinking about this for a little while and I think the fundamental difference (for me, anyway) is that essential services-police, fire, defense et al-do not turn free men into Wards of the State.

OTOH, Socialized medicine will turn us all into Wards of the State. Medicare has already done that for a large portion of the population.

A fire department is not an essential service. It's sure nice to have, but a number of businesses maintain their own fire departments because they believe they can do it better. Water and power are not essential services for the government to provide. Technically, in most areas private companies supply water and power but they do so under a tightly regulated government monopoly regarding terms, conditions, and allowable rates. Everyone needs water and power but everyone also needs clothing and there's no Government Clothing Store around to sell (or provide it) to people.

Roads aren't an essential service either. There's no reason people can't buy up land on their own, put roads on it and charge whatever they want for others to travel on their roads.

In some communities, the government provides garbage service while in others it's farmed out.

You are making the same value judgment that others make: namely that certain services are "essential" and that the government should provide those services. Your definition of essential is just narrower than others. It doesn't inherently make one defintion or the other right or wrong.
'

[smilergrogan]

Has free universal K-12 education made us all wards of the state?

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

[TheCalvinator24]

Has free universal K-12 education made us all wards of the state?

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

To answer the first question, yes.

To answer the second, no.

[smilergrogan]

To answer the first question, yes.

To answer the second, no.

Two wrong on the consolidation.

[silvercamaro]

Has free universal K-12 education made us all wards of the state?

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

I believe the quality of universal health care will be distributed as equally as the quality of universal education; that is, not very well at all.

In fact, it may be far worse. We already have the infrastructure for education (schools and teachers) in place. Nevertheless, many schools in some parts of the country provide such substandard education than none of us willingly would send our children to them. We do not have a similar infrastructure for health care. Many areas of the country do not have enough doctors and other health care providers to serve the existing population, and many places have no hospitals close by. To build such an infrastructure will take years and enormous financial investments. Providing "free" health care to people already living in areas with sufficient services also will be extraordinarily expensive, so eventually, health care will be rationed, as it is in England, where the following headline was written for today's newspapers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -much.html

[TheCalvinator24]

To answer the first question, yes.

To answer the second, no.

Two wrong on the consolidation.

Says you.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

Why is it ok for the government to keep gay people from adopting, but not fat people?

[earendel]

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

Why is it ok for the government to keep gay people from adopting, but not fat people?

Who said it was OK? Here in Kentucky there's an uproar about a bill introduced in the state Senate that would prevent any same-sex couple from even providing foster care for children. This would include two sisters trying to raise their deceased brother's child. The furor is over the belief that the bill is intended to prevent same-sex (read: gay) couples from being involved in the foster care system.

[silverscreenselect]

Has free universal K-12 education made us all wards of the state?

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

I believe the quality of universal health care will be distributed as equally as the quality of universal education; that is, not very well at all.

In fact, it may be far worse. We already have the infrastructure for education (schools and teachers) in place. Nevertheless, many schools in some parts of the country provide such substandard education than none of us willingly would send our children to them.

Two years ago, Atlanta police falsified information on a search warrant request, broke into the home of a 92 year old woman, gunned her down, then later planted marijuana in an attempt to justify their initial actions and repeatedly lied under oath to obstruct the investigation.

By my figuring, that's substandard police protection any way you want to look at it. And every day in the newspapers you read other horror stories about corrupt or inept police harming the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Does that mean we should abolish our police departments and rely solely on whatever type of private security forces we are able to afford in order to protect us?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

Why is it ok for the government to keep gay people from adopting, but not fat people?

Hell if I know.

[Appa23]

Isn't a healthy population equally as important as an educated one?

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

Why is it ok for the government to keep gay people from adopting, but not fat people?

The concept would be the same for the exclusion of either class of people: best interest of the child. This is the reason why so many private adoption agencies will not allow overweight, over-age, or homosexual persons to adopt.

In the first two instances, an agency has to determine whether it really is in a child's best interest to be introduced and adopted into a family, only to have a parent die at some point in their childhood. Additionally, there is the issue of whether a child's best interest includes having an "active" parent.

In the third instance, you have the fairly well-establshed fact that children, in general, are better off in a home with a mother and a father. Thus, an agency would like to place children in that "ideal" home. [Admittedly, a single parent home or a home missing a male/female presence generally is much preferred to an orphange or group home.]

In addition, although I have not researched the point, I have not heard of any appellate court declaring that the right to adopt is unquestionably a fundamental right, as compared to the right to marry, for example.

[SportsFan68]

I believe the quality of universal health care will be distributed as equally as the quality of universal education; that is, not very well at all.

In fact, it may be far worse. We already have the infrastructure for education (schools and teachers) in place. Nevertheless, many schools in some parts of the country provide such substandard education than none of us willingly would send our children to them. We do not have a similar infrastructure for health care. Many areas of the country do not have enough doctors and other health care providers to serve the existing population, and many places have no hospitals close by. To build such an infrastructure will take years and enormous financial investments. Providing "free" health care to people already living in areas with sufficient services also will be extraordinarily expensive, so eventually, health care will be rationed, as it is in England, where the following headline was written for today's newspapers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -much.html

What SC cautions about has already come to pass with regard to Medicare in our area. Health care doctors and clinics are not required to accept new Medicare patients if the practice already has a certain percentage of patients on Medicare. For a long time, there were no GPs (General Practitioners) in the county accepting new Medicare patients. Patients had to pay the bills themselves, which wasn't onerous for routine visits, as the docs and clinics all had two scales -- one for insured, one for uninsured patients. After deductibles and co-pays for insured patients, uninsured patients often pay less on the lower scale. For surgery and major illnesses, that's different; most people can't come up with that kind of money even on the lower scale. My surgery several years ago was $3,000 for the surgeon (covered 90% by insurance, I hasten to add); I don't know a lot of people who have that kind of cash on hand.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

and we go from there to having the government tell us we should eat margarine instead of butter, and then banning transfats.
or refusing to allow fat people to adopt or taxing chocolate.

In the third instance, you have the fairly well-establshed fact that children, in general, are better off in a home with a mother and a father.

Is that actually true? Is there a body of well-accepted research that children raised by same-sex parents do worse than children raised by opposite-sex parents?

[Sir_Galahad]

Frogman said>>>So my question is in what way is health care socialism if government gets involved but police and fire isn't? Why do those who are screaming socialism at everything President Obama is doing not screaming about those services? Finally, do you think having knee-jerk reactions (which I believe yelling socialism is) is productive and adds to the dialog?

BTW, those aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know.<<<<

I pulled this out of the other thread to separate it from the Limbaugh stuff.

I have been thinking about this for a little while and I think the fundamental difference (for me, anyway) is that essential services-police, fire, defense et al-do not turn free men into Wards of the State.

OTOH, Socialized medicine will turn us all into Wards of the State. Medicare has already done that for a large portion of the population.

Over the last few months, the best description I can come up with of my political philosophy is that I oppose policies that turn people into wards of the state.

Seems to me that police and fire departments, for example are not mandated by the federal government. They are established by state and local governments and your state taxes go to fund them and they benefit the general welfare of the communities in which they serve. Since most state and local entities determined that it was beneficial that their municipalities were better off with these services than without, they were established. but, I am sure there are some towns strewn throughout the country that do not have these services.

I see the proposed Nationalized Healthcare program as being completely different from your local services. As I have posted before, I believe Health Insurance should be privatized and driven in much the same manner as any other insurance business; not controlled by the federal government or any other general health management organization.

[Appa23]

In the third instance, you have the fairly well-establshed fact that children, in general, are better off in a home with a mother and a father.

Is that actually true? Is there a body of well-accepted research that children raised by same-sex parents do worse than children raised by opposite-sex parents?

That is the issue to be determined in greater detail in the years to come, as there is an increasing number of same-sex household to study.

I was speaking in more generality. After decades and decades of different studies, there seems to be a prevailing thought that two parent households are better than one parent households, and that there is importance in gender modeling (particularly with boys).

In case it was not clear, here is what I was trying to explain. As an adoption agency, you look at all of the various data imputs foe the prospective parent(s) -- age, health, income, stability, house, existing kids, family health background, parenting experience, etc etc etc. What you want is something that approaches that mythical "ideal". You want to place a child in the best situation as possible, and certainly in a place that is much better than where they are.

What truly is in the best interest of a child is a tricky concept to know.

P.S. I love the pics of Frankie in the snow. My lil' est one got into the snow, said "Snow cold", and wanted to go back inside.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Is that actually true? Is there a body of well-accepted research that children raised by same-sex parents do worse than children raised by opposite-sex parents?

That is the issue to be determined in the years to come, as there is an increasing number of same-sex household to study.

I was speaking in more generality. After decades and decades of different studies, there seems to be a prevailing thought that two parent households are better than one parent households, and that there is importance in gender modeling (particularly with boys).

In case it was not clear, here is what I was trying to explain. As an adoption agency, you look at all of the various data imputs foe the prospective parent(s) -- age, health, income, stability, house, existing kids, family health background, parenting experience, etc etc etc. What you want is something that approaches that mythical "ideal". You want to place a child in the best situation as possible, and certainly in a place that is much better than where they are.

What truly is in the best interest of a child is a tricky concept to know.

I agree that adoption agencies should place children in the best situations possible, within the bounds of reason.

I don't think you're saying it's ok for the government to ban gay couples from adopting.

It sounds to me that you're taking it as a given that 2 opposite sex parents are better than 2 same sex parents. It seems you're basing that on little more than intuition. My intuition says quite the opposite.

And, take it with a grain of salt, I keep hearing about studies finding that there is no difference. As you may imagine, I hear about them from extremely pro-gay-rights-biased sources (i.e. the venue from which I hear about the studies is biased, not that the study itself is necessarily so). Maybe I hear from multiple sources about the same small number of studies, who knows. Generally I hear about studies that purport to show things at odds with my worldview, though not as often as I hear about things that support it. I don't think I ever recall having heard of a study showing that children raised by gay couples have poorer outcomes than children raised by straight couples.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

P.S. I love the pics of Frankie in the snow. My lil' est one got into the snow, said "Snow cold", and wanted to go back inside.

Thanks. I think my quoting of you and your editing this comment in crossed or I would have included that in the original reply.

I really don't have much experience with Frankie in the snow - it turns to crud and worse here in Chicago, and there seems to be a widespread belief in the poop fairy. The snow pictures you've seen are all Michigan pictures, from the trip where we went to Pinconning when Margy's dad had the surgery (he's doing great, btw). I had to leave to go back to work as soon as things were ok, and Margy and Frankie stayed another week, which is where that snow frolicking came from.

There are even better snow pictures from the other weekend that I haven't posted yet, but again I wasn't there. They went to his cousins birthday in Grand Rapids and to visit family friends in Lawrence, but I had to stay behind due to pink eye.

[BackInTex]

I don't think I ever recall having heard of a study showing that children raised by gay couples have poorer outcomes than children raised by straight couples.

I would wager to say that kids adopted and raised by gay parents may come out ahead in a study for this reason (and this is totally based on what I 'figure' is the case as I have not stats on the matter):

Currently, a gay couple getting to adopt is a big deal. Maybe those authorizing it don't think it should be, but they know it is. And they know that if one of the parents sneezes wrong the world will look at them and say "SEE!?" and that would close the door, or at least stiffen the hinges, on gay adoptions for a long time. So when they do approve a gay couple, that couple is a top 2% gay couple in income, education, status or something. They are NOT Bob the hourly carpenter and Henry the Jiffy Lube oil changer.

But Bill the hourly carpenter, with anger issues, and his hairdresser wife Brenda get approved.

Plus Robert the gay orthodontists and his partner Richard the attorney would also be very aware of their positon as pioneers in an adoption and would make it as sure and obvious as possible that their child is getting the best (and they are doing everything possible to make the sexuality decision of the child as 'independent' as possible).

In other words, the populations to sample from are not the same.

Do I support gay adoptions? Absolutely not. Do I think some kids adopted by gay parents will come out O.K.? Sure

[silvercamaro]

Two years ago, Atlanta police falsified information on a search warrant request, broke into the home of a 92 year old woman, gunned her down, then later planted marijuana in an attempt to justify their initial actions and repeatedly lied under oath to obstruct the investigation.

By my figuring, that's substandard police protection any way you want to look at it. And every day in the newspapers you read other horror stories about corrupt or inept police harming the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Does that mean we should abolish our police departments and rely solely on whatever type of private security forces we are able to afford in order to protect us?

Ruthless and dishonest people can be found in virtually every profession. Their presence in society has nothing to do with universal health care, unless or until ruthlessness and dishonesty become part of national health care policy.

[silverscreenselect]

Two years ago, Atlanta police falsified information on a search warrant request, broke into the home of a 92 year old woman, gunned her down, then later planted marijuana in an attempt to justify their initial actions and repeatedly lied under oath to obstruct the investigation.

By my figuring, that's substandard police protection any way you want to look at it. And every day in the newspapers you read other horror stories about corrupt or inept police harming the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Does that mean we should abolish our police departments and rely solely on whatever type of private security forces we are able to afford in order to protect us?

Ruthless and dishonest people can be found in virtually every profession. Their presence in society has nothing to do with universal health care, unless or until ruthlessness and dishonesty become part of national health care policy.

Your argument was that because some public schools were substandard, education and, presumably, health care should not be offered by the government. I tried to point out that other government services such as police services can be substandard as well.

No one denies that the best services that are available in the private sector are much better than those available in the public sector. The best private schools and teachers are far better than public schools. The best doctors and treatment would be better than public health care. Top level security forces are better than local police deparments. The issue isn't whether you can't do better in the private sector. It's whether our interests as a country (or state or city) would be better served by the relatively few having access to the best services while the rest of us make do with inferior or in some cases non-existent services.

Without public schools, many students would do without an education. Most of us can't afford to hire Blackwater so we'd have no police or fire protection. Already, millions have inadequate health care.

It's a complete myth that health care decisions in this country are made by doctors and patients. They are made by insurance company bureaucrats who are looking to make a profit for their companies and hefty bonuses for themselves. Treatment is rationed out in many cases according to what those bureaucrats feel is the maximum feasible in order to make a profit. Nationalizing health care would replace this bureaucracy with a public bureaucracy, but it would minimize the decisions that were made solely for the sake of corporate profit.

There are a lot of people in this country who are trying to provide adequate (not necessarily the very best) health care for their families, but they are one bad break away from total financial and health ruin. We wouldn't think of telling these people that it was up to them to come up with some way to hire a cop to protect themselves. We shouldn't do that with our health care system.

[Jeemie]

There are a lot of people in this country who are trying to provide adequate (not necessarily the very best) health care for their families, but they are one bad break away from total financial and health ruin. We wouldn't think of telling these people that it was up to them to come up with some way to hire a cop to protect themselves. We shouldn't do that with our health care system.

Why shouldn't we?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. We can't afford to coddle people cradle to grave.

And I don't say that to be mean, but to be realistic.

For 150 years of our nation's history, we got by with hardly any health insurance coverage at all. It didn't take off in this country until it was offered as a PERK to lure workers during World War II.

Now, we can't survive as a nation without universal health coverage?