An American Cry for Help: Death vs Life Panels

[Raziaar]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35572842#35572842

This is a special comment from Keith Olbermann about a situation he recently faced with his father.

I thought it was worthy of its own thread. It's a remarkable piece that goes to the heart of the health care debate.

 

[Noodle]

I should say that I really can't stand Olbermann, but I do feel sorry for his father/family. I do think that the whole "pre-existing condition" insurance denial is wrong, but the sad fact is that medical care costs money.

 

[Solaris]

I should say that I really can't stand Olbermann, but I do feel sorry for his father/family. I do think that the whole "pre-existing condition" insurance denial is wrong, but the sad fact is that medical care costs money.

Which, if paid for by the state means everyone can have access to top rate health care, free of charge regardless of class or creed.

I'm a very staunch defender of a state funded health care system, our NHS is fantastic.

 

[jverne]

IMO it's something like this. In private medicine basic care is worse but the more specialized and complex care is better.

I'm a supporter of both. Keep basic health care under the state but allow private clinics.

 

[Maestro]

From what I've heard (I know, it's such hard evidence), the defining line between haves and have-nots in Canada is who lives in the cities/suburbia and who doesn't, instead of who's poor and who isn't.

 

[Noodle]

The main problems I have with are:

-Paying for it. You're telling the people that currently can afford the health care of their choice (choice is a big thing), that they're going to have to pay for other people's health care as well (through taxes). The only other option is to continue the alarming increase in debt.

-Government bureaucracy: Waiting lists, inefficiency, and wasted funds.

If anything, I could support offering low-cost, basic care to those on the lowest ends of the income scale (think welfare-level), but that's about it.

 

[falconwind]

As I understand it:

Our Health Care system in Canada is in need of some serious attention. Our population has increased, but our medical capacity has decreased. Partly from funding cuts, and partly from a medical talent shortage/hemorrhage (doctors and nurses can make more money in the US).

That being said, you're correct, in that its not about money, but rather when and where you can be treated.

Also, technically, its not free. My fellow citizens, as well as myself, pay for it through income tax. Also, for the hospitals and clinics, the only difference is that instead of sending me the bill, they bill the government.

But it's very comforting to know that I don't have to worry about money when I'm hospitalized.

 

[Tagaziel]

-Paying for it. You're telling the people that currently can afford the health care of their choice (choice is a big thing), that they're going to have to pay for other people's health care as well (through taxes). The only other option is to continue the alarming increase in debt.

Nobody's going to force them to abandon their current health care provider.

However, I do not think that "increase in taxes" is a proper reply. With so much bullshit about the country and patriotism, you'd think people would be a little more willing to support their fellow countrymen.

-Government bureaucracy: Waiting lists, inefficiency, and wasted funds.

But people do get health care.

Plus, it's not like the current government is effective with its money or time.

If anything, I could support offering low-cost, basic care to those on the lowest ends of the income scale (think welfare-level), but that's about it.

Ya, dem ghetto docs be good, mistah Noodl.

 

[Raziaar]

With so much bullshit about the country and patriotism, you'd think people would be a little more willing to support their fellow countrymen.

You'd be surprised... they don't even want hungry and poor school children to have free school lunches.

 

[Warped]

if they implemented a system like this i think it would be awesome:

your sick and have no money. the hospital pays your bills and you heal properly, but your invested in their interests and have to help the hospital. lets say for the same type of patients that are going through what you went though. that way theres plenty of help in the hospital and your being taken care of someone who knows exactly what your going through. i know it sounds like a far fetch and the $$ issue would need to be addressed but imagine finally walking into a hospital and not waiting in the waiting room but being attended quickly. or god damn why don't we have more surgical robots zipping us up and doing more. this is 2010 we're supposed to have flying cars 10 years ago!

i blame Christianity and the Dark Ages bullshit that set us back nearly a 800 years

 

[Noodle]

It. Is. Not. Free.

It will cost a shitload of money. The taxes will be raised, almost entirely on the those on top of the income scale, who are (surprise!) the people that need state health-care the least. It's socialism any way you slice it.

Also, the cost of health-care in America is way higher than Canada, since we have more problems with making people getting some f**king exercise and eating more than just fried candy bars. Paying for would require some serious tax works. Those on the higher end of the income scale (those paying the vast majority of taxes) are already practically supporting the government and thus the lower end of the scale. Now you want them to pay for people who're sick because they couldn't stop eating?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

It. Is. Not. Free.

It will cost a shitload of money. The taxes will be raised, almost entirely on the those on top of the income scale, who are (surprise!) the people that need state health-care the least.

Private healthcare costs more per person than most public healthcare systems. Swedes pay less money per year for healthcare in tax-form than the average American pays for health insurance.

It's socialism any way you slice it.

Yes, well done.

 

[15357]

Despite my disdain for socialism, I wholeheartedly support national health care. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the governed - the citizens - have healthy lives. Manpower is an important resource, a resource that cannot be replaced by any other resource (at least with current technology), and directly affects many parts of a country's well being including the economy and its defense capabilities. Therefore maintaining the health of the citizenry should be seen as a priority.

Also, despite fears of raised taxes, Korea has nationalized health insurance, but maintains a 16% income tax rate, while countries like the US have rates over 23%.

 

[Laivasse]

The taxes will be raised, almost entirely on the those on top of the income scale, who are (surprise!) the people that need state health-care the least. It's socialism any way you slice it.

Except, you know, when you slice it that way all tax-funded programs become 'socialism'.

I don't see how this can be written off as an ideological issue of 'OMG SOCIALISM' other than by social darwinists and people still obsessed with the red scare.

 

[nurizeko]

NHS has never done me or my family wrong, if anything its kept my family together.

The US deserves better than what it has currently got.

 

[Sparta]

-Paying for it. You're telling the people that currently can afford the health care of their choice (choice is a big thing), that they're going to have to pay for other people's health care as well (through taxes).

Noodle: I edited two of your posts together to respond to both at once.

It. Is. Not. Free.

It will cost a shitload of money. The taxes will be raised, almost entirely on the those on top of the income scale, who are (surprise!) the people that need state health-care the least. It's socialism any way you slice it.

Also, the cost of health-care in America is way higher than Canada, since we have more problems with making people getting some f**king exercise and eating more than just fried candy bars. Paying for would require some serious tax works. Those on the higher end of the income scale (those paying the vast majority of taxes) are already practically supporting the government and thus the lower end of the scale. Now you want them to pay for people who're sick because they couldn't stop eating?

Well, if you have a problem with paying for other people's things, you may as well stop using public transport, electricity, the fire department, the police department, drinking your water, eating your food, driving your car, etc etc etc. All of those things and plenty of others are either paid for or regulated by government to ensure their safe, thanks to the taxes that you, your neighbours and every other citizen pay. If your beef is that a public option in healthcare leads to socialism, that's nonsense because by that argument the United States should've been a socialist republic a long long time ago.

That's also forgetting the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries the U.S. and other coalition nations invaded to spread democracy, both have Universal Health Care as a human right, a right that was written into their very constitutions. Constitutions that were written by the U.S. after the overthrow of those nations prior governments. In short the U.S. government was able to install universal health care into Iraq and Afghanistan before installing it into their own nation. They certainly didn't think it was socialist then, even if they did, they didn't mind.

Every first world nation in the world has some form of Government run healthcare. The only exception is the U.S. Whether it's a NHS system like the U.K. or a private and public system like us here in Australia, every one has it. Yet none of these nations are socialist, all of them are staunchly capitalist and democracies.

No one is debating that it's going to be free, but the main problem with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is because of the pharmaceutical industry. Other governments around the world have price control laws on the cost of pharmaceuticals, the U.S. doesn't and it has the highest drug prices in the world. The reason there is no talk about lowering drug prices is because the pharmaceutical industry has spent almost a billion dollars in the past decade alone in lobbying congress. If you could force drug price control laws through congress and make them real you could significantly reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S.

For example, take Lipitor. It's something you take to lower your blood chlorestoral level. If you buy a 40mg pack of Lipitor in the U.S. it can cost between $350-390 USD. That's because pharmaceuticals like Pfizer are free to dictate the price however they please. In Australia, 40mg of Lipitor goes for as little as $85 USD. That's because we have drug price control laws.

You shouldn't be worried about what will happen if the government controls healthcare, you should be worried about will happen if the government does NOT control healthcare. It's already a terrible, terrible system you've got in the U.S, the worst of any first world nation on the planet, and it's showing no signs of getting better on its own.

-Government bureaucracy: Waiting lists, inefficiency, and wasted funds.

The same thing is happening with the free market, only instead of wasting funds on government bureaucracy, you're wasting an incredible amount of money on over-priced drugs and over-priced and ridiculous health insurance. Insurance that isn't even guaranteed to cover you thanks to legal loopholes like the "pre-existing condition" clause among others.

Government bureaucracies certainly aren't perfect, but even with the problems that come with government healthcare, it's far far superior than what you've got now. I've had the experience of have to deal with the healthcare system in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen and with the Australian system as an Aussie. The difference in quality is insignificant, but the difference in cost is absolutely astronomical. To put it simply, as someone with a bone disorder (fragile bones), I can live in Australia without fear of bankruptcy due to healthcare costs, no matter what happens. I wouldn't last a year in the U.S.

 

[unozero]

Hate that dude.

ninja edit: watched the whole thing I agree with him but I still don't like the guy.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Socialised healthcare in unneccessary and inefficient, socialised health insurance is a far better idea.

 

[The Monkey]

At the moment, the average American spends more than the double in health care costs than the average Western European (including through taxes), yet the quality of the European health care is higher. Something must be done about the American health system, quickly.

 

[lord_raken]

There are severe consequences from enacting government run health care.

Taxes will increase reducing a citizens income which will reduce the overall vitality of the economy. If people spend less then industry will decrease, people lose jobs, and overall income goes down even more. Its a vicious cycle that completely goes against human nature.

These taxes going to the government will be lost wasted and used to fun government pork. It has already happened with social security (by the time I get old enough to collect there won't be anything left... which I guess is a good thing cause that program needs to die.) which has become a huge black hold form taxpayer's money. Also the government pays lower prices to doctors reducing the profitability of being a doctor. This will cause doctors to leave the profession and fewer people to become doctors. Why do you think you have a doctor shortage, Canada?

Trusting the government is never a good idea. You think the government will treat you better than a company? Companies are motivated by profit. In order to make profits they have to cater to the wants consumers. They must compete with other companies (aka lower prices and offer more coverage for less). In order for them to get what they want (money) they have to give us what we want and at a lower price than their competitors. Government run health care has none of those balances to keep prices in check.

You blame the pharmaceutical companies fro trying to "create" conditions so they can sell more drugs (I agree they are an issue)... Just wait until they jump into bed with the government and their legion of lobbyists. You think the cost is bad now when you can change your insurance company if the prices are too high just wait till were locked into a payment plan we cant get away from (the taxes).

If the Government health care is cheaper than the other insurance providers will be driven out of business. Unlike the government, corporations actually have to pay their employees a fair wage (the same people who need money to live and get their own health coverage). The insurance companies provide services the consumers want and create jobs and wealth. If they won't serve certain people maybe its time for some entrepreneur to start an insurance company that specializes in low income customers. The big insurance companies don't want them so there wouldn't be much friction.

I really sympathize with your goals. It would be great to get to a point where everyone could get the coverage they need, but giving all the control, money and power to the government is probably the absolutely WORST way to achieve that. (any of you know how Tyrants come to power?)

Some government social programs are expected, but until our government can show us that they are able to run those programs effectively it would be very stupid to let them expand those programs.

Edit: If we have such a messed up system why do people come from all over the world to receive medical care?... because ITS THE BEST... yes it may be expensive but we have the best doctors, surgeons, and medical facilities in the world. Why do we have the best in the world? Because good doctors and surgeons can expect to make a shitload of cash in return fro their services. That's why they spend crap loads of money and time to go to medical schools. They didn't spend 8 years of their life paying through the nose just to have fun! No They wanted to make some F*****g Money. And they can't make that money in other more socialist countries like they can here.

 

[CptStern]

funny how none of your speculation as to what will happen if the US gets universal healthcare has happened in any of the countries that have adopted it. it's only the US, they're different than everyone else. it will never work. it works in canada the UK, spain, france ..but not the US. it just WONT work. you should know as you've tried it before to catastrophic results . DONT EVEN TRY AMERICA

If we have such a messed up system why do people come from all over the world to receive medical care?... because ITS THE BEST

lol, not even close. number 37 does not equal the best. ok lets say for argument's sake it's not that the US has the best healthcare system in the world (it doesnt by a longshot) but lets just say you're actually saying that it's the most technologically advanced (which would fit in to your point hat why do so many foreigners come to america to recieve medical care) ..what good is that if a large segment of americans will never see that type of care due to being uninsured? 45 million americans and counting.

 

[Raziaar]

lord_raken, you completely ignore the fact of all the Americans that travel abroad specifically for better, less expensive health care.

 

[Solaris]

I know it might seem a bit cruel, but I look forward to a thread in the future where one of these anti-'socialised'-medicine people posts how they just got injured and due to the hospital bill have to sell their house or worse.

I hope then they will realise how shitty their system is, and will atone for the suffering they have inflicted on their fellow countrymen by denying them state funded health care. Becuase I think that is what it's ultimately coming down to, people are dying in America becuase of the shit healthcare system. You have blood on your hands.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Yeah because its individual citizens holding back healthcare reform not the corporate owned democrats.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

It would be great to get to a point where everyone could get the coverage they need, but giving all the control, money and power to the government is probably the absolutely WORST way to achieve that. (any of you know how Tyrants come to power?)

Colonialism, open revolt, rigged elections, through military means and... by making the population addicted to Vicodin?

You think the government will treat you better than a company?

Yes.

In order to make profits they have to cater to the wants consumers.

Except with medicine, any kind of treatment, no matter how bad or how much debt it will put you in, is preferable to no treatment what ever. So really, all the companies have to supply is medical care at whatever price they wish. People will pay. Why? Cause it's medical care. You need that shit to live, bro.

Edit: If we have such a messed up system why do people come from all over the world to receive medical care?... because ITS THE BEST...

Not. Even. Close.

I genuinely could not imagine living in a country like America for this reason. Shit, I'd be scared to death the entire time. If I get sick or in accident, I may have to pay for treatment? That's just insane. What good is a government if it doesn't look out for you? Police, fire department, schools and ****in' hospitals, man! I have a friend with diabetes and kidney problems, if he had to pay the $150 each month that his medicine costs, that'd seriously hurt him. Not to mention all the times he's been in the hospital for injections and complications. And unlike me, he actually has a job! Admittedly at Burger King, but still... (Yes, we do have Burger King here in the evil Socialist Empire of Sweden- but the government is slowly taking control via our hospitals to overthrow both Burger King, McDonalds and 7-Eleven.)
Btw- most of the pharmacies here in Sweden recently went private. So they can all go **** themselves. State-controlled ftw, bitches! I don't trust the other ones one damn bit.

The only part of my health I'm ever likely to pay any serious money for is my teeth. I pay something like $30 a quarter and that covers anything that may go wrong with my teeth. Even that sits a bit funny with me, but hey- to quote Ed Byrne "They're just teeth, if they break, you can get more."

 

[Raziaar]

The last thing you and your family needs to worry about when you're sick... especially life threatening illness... is how are you going to pay for it.

Oh god... these medical bills are going to bankrupt me. And they're going to bankrupt my loved ones too. We're never going to be able to pull ourselves out from underneath all these medical bills... oh god, I think I feel worse with all this STRESS AND DEPRESSION OVERWHELMING ME WHILE I NEED TO BE STRONG TO FIGHT OFF WHATEVER THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

The last thing you and your family needs to worry about when you're sick... especially life threatening illness... is how are you going to pay for it.

Oh god... these medical bills are going to bankrupt me. And they're going to bankrupt my loved ones too. We're never going to be able to pull ourselves out from underneath all these medical bills... oh god, I think I feel worse with all this STRESS AND DEPRESSION OVERWHELMING ME WHILE I NEED TO BE STRONG TO FIGHT OFF WHATEVER THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME.

This right here, a million times over.

 

[CptStern]

The last thing you and your family needs to worry about when you're sick... especially life threatening illness... is how are you going to pay for it.

Oh god... these medical bills are going to bankrupt me. And they're going to bankrupt my loved ones too. We're never going to be able to pull ourselves out from underneath all these medical bills... oh god, I think I feel worse with all this STRESS AND DEPRESSION OVERWHELMING ME WHILE I NEED TO BE STRONG TO FIGHT OFF WHATEVER THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME.

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

 

[Solaris]

What a shocking find there Stern!

Well, those of you who oppose healthcare for the poor, justify that!

 

[CptStern]

What a shocking find there Stern!

Well, those of you who oppose healthcare for the poor, justify that!

it's no longer exclusive to the poor:

Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School, and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college.

They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income.

 

[Noodle]

The problem with paying for it is this:
-The potential abuse of health-care in America is greater, mostly since we have too many damn fat people.
-Any taxes imposed to make up for the cost would most likely be added as a progressive income tax, which I am wholly against. A flat tax increase or sales tax would be better.

I do have an honest question: Why not do more to regulate pharmaceuticals and put various price controls in place. Expand government INSURANCE to the the low end of the income scale, as well as those with varified pre-existing conditions.

Oh, and tort reform. I know it's small, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. It would lower the cost of malpractice insurance greatly, and thus lower the cost of more basic care.

 

[CptStern]

The problem with paying for it is this:
-The potential abuse of health-care in America is greater, mostly since we have too many damn fat people.

the alternative is killing america one citizen at a time. if I'm underinsured I might not go to the doctor for say a common cold ..even if say I need anti-biotics; the cost is preventative. therefore I may just go without which means I'm more likely to pass it on to someone else and more likely to miss work which means lost productivity ..now multiply that 45 million times and then add all those who are insured but still have limited budget per year ..what if the illness is life threatening? treatign it when it's at it's worse may be too late. how many people go undiagnosed because they cant afford a regualr check or followup treatment or a second opinion. this never happens in canad unless it's the patient's choice not to go. I never have to consult some pencil pushing office guy who cares more about the bottom dollar than my health. if I want a second, third, fourth, fifth etc opinion I just present my healthcard and that's the extent of it. no bills to pay no consulting with my insurer etc

if you people have no problem being gouged for services other people in other countries take for granted so be it; it's your loss. also you probably dont care all that much right now when you're relatively healthy but you will. a friend in NY pays on average $14K out of pocket a year ..and he's a freakin lawyer with good benefits. my only out of pocket expense is a dispensing fee ($12) when I buy medication

Any taxes imposed to make up for the cost would most likely be added as a progressive income tax, which I am wholly against. A flat tax increase or sales tax would be better.

why not redistribute taxes to pay for it instead of adding a tax. say less invading and more taking care of your own? hell that's not a lot to ask is it? I mean the people you inevitably invade get universal healthcare courtsey of uncle sam. ..so why cant it do the same for americans?

I do have an honest question: Why not do more to regulate pharmaceuticals and put various price controls in place. Expand government INSURANCE to the the low end of the income scale, as well as those with varified pre-existing conditions.

Oh, and tort reform. I know it's small, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. It would lower the cost of malpractice insurance greatly, and thus lower the cost of more basic care.[/QUOTE]

 

[Noodle]

why not redistribute taxes to pay for it instead of adding a tax.

The odds of that happening are incredibly slim, and that shows one thing that's really messed up with American politics. And again, to get the same level of health-care quality from the government would cost way more per American than it does per Canadian since we have too many people that don't use common sense when their health is concerned.

It ends up that the whole of taxpayers get charged every time someone eats another twinkie or smokes another cigarette.

 

[CptStern]

The odds of that happening are incredibly slim, and that shows one thing that's really messed up with American politics. And again, to get the same level of health-care quality from the government would cost way more per American than it does per Canadian since we have too many people that don't use common sense when their health is concerned.

and canadians are full of common sense? how do you if you if you're never tried.

It ends up that the whole of taxpayers get charged every time someone eats another twinkie or smokes another cigarette.

you mean like it is in every other first world country yet no one ever cries healthcare abuse. you're afraid of the unknown even though the likelihood of the unknown is at best speculative based on nothing but personal feeling. I mean it works in every other country why not the US? sure you have more fat people but we also have fat people and despitehaving fat people our emergency rooms/waiting areas are not full of fat people

and I dont see how anyone could abuse healthcare ..doesnt a doctor have assess whether the person is sick or not? ("you're not sick, come back in 6 months") and pre-existing conditions that may lead to above average visitations to a doctor is the norm everywhere. Canadians are not all that much more healthier than americans if at all

 

[lord_raken]

Those who give up their freedom for security will soon have neither. Those who become dependent on the government for their financial and physical well being are controlled by it.

I may struggle for my own welfare but I will be free from subjugation.

Some may be content to live as sheep, but not I.

So I will protect my freedom from all comers: be they government, socialist, or fundamentalist.

I'd rather be free than a sheep. Call me crazy and I will thank you for the compliment... because you condemnation is some of the highest praise I can receive.

 

[PvtRyan]

Those who give up their freedom for security will soon have neither. Those who become dependent on the government for their financial and physical well being are controlled by it.

I may struggle for my own welfare but I will be free from subjugation.

Some may be content to live as sheep, but not I.

So I will protect my freedom from all comers: be they government, socialist, or fundamentalist.

I'd rather be free than a sheep. Call me crazy and I will thank you for the compliment... because you condemnation is some of the highest praise I can receive.

Eh, could you present yourself any more as a walking cliche?

You have a bit of a false dilemma going on there. The only two options are basically ultra libertarianism or Soviet USA? People who just want to not worry about finances when it comes to their health opt for the latter?

I'm in no way a socialist, nor am I some hardcore libertarian. All I care about is what works and the only country on the planet that thinks it doesn't work is the USA.

So does it work, or doesn't it work? It's the only thing that matters, convictions are bullshit.

 

[lord_raken]

Eh, could you present yourself any more as a walking cliche?

You have a bit of a false dilemma going on there. The only two options are basically ultra libertarianism or Soviet USA? People who just want to not worry about finances when it comes to their health opt for the latter?

I'm in no way a socialist, nor am I some hardcore libertarian. All I care about is what works and the only country on the planet that thinks it doesn't work is the USA.

So does it work, or doesn't it work? It's the only thing that matters, convictions are bullshit.

Not walking, I'm sitting. And yes I am a pretty hard core libertarian. How being a libertarian is cliche is beyond me. Soviets are communists... which is about as far from libertarian as you can get.

Convictions are the reason we are our own country and not a British colony. Too many people have died for these "bullshit" convictions as you call them for me to just give them up.

I don't think it will work, but if it did I still think there are better ways of achieving the same result. You may still get your wish. If I trusted the government I might agree with you and allow a limited Government run Insurance polity for the lowest income brackets, but as it stands now... I think the Gov will screw it up, waste the money, and make us all regret it.

I'm an Idealist... can't you tell. HAHA!

 

[Solaris]

Ultimately, it comes down to believing in your country enough to think it can and should look after it's citizens when no-one else will.

This freedom fetishing 'libertarianism' is nothing more than the desire to live ones life with oneself clear in the forefront. Unconcerned and uncaring of those who you don't know. That ideology is not one I can identify it, all men are brothers:


No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

 

[lord_raken]

Ultimately, it comes down to believing in your country enough to think it can and should look after it's citizens when no-one else will.

This freedom fetishing 'libertarianism' is nothing more than the desire to live ones life with oneself clear in the forefront. Unconcerned and uncaring of those who you don't know. That ideology is not one I can identify it, all men are brothers:


No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

I agree with the purple text. But your own comment confuses me. You act as though I won't help my fellow man just because I want to keep my independence.

If fact I believe that, as a free libertarian, a large part of my purpose in life is to help my fellow man.... I just don't want the government telling me what to do. I will chose who to help with my time and money... not the government. I plan of donating to charities and children's hospitals (one I have money), I have volunteered my time to help those less fortunate than me.

I will help people but I will do through my time and effort... not through a mandatory tax... the money of which I will have no control over who it helps or how well it is used. It takes the heart out of helping one another.

I want to see the smiles of those I help... not pay a bill and hope it makes it to someone who needs it. (unlikely)

Also, my country and what it represents is NOT the government that runs it. The Gov is their to run OUR country and we as the people have the right (its in the Constitution) to alter or abolish it should we chose. I love my country and I even believe in the Democratic Republic system, but as it stands now I distrust the government... It was the government that allowed the Pharisaical industry to become as powerful as it is and verious other actions have caused much of the higher prices.

 

[Solaris]

I agree with the purple text. But your own comment confuses me. You act as though I won't help my fellow man just because I want to keep my independence.

If fact I believe that, as a free libertarian, a large part of my purpose in life is to help my fellow man.... I just don't want the government telling me what to do. I will chose who to help with my time and money... not the government. I plan of donating to charities and children's hospitals (one I have money), I have volunteered my time to help those less fortunate than me.

I will help people but I will do through my time and effort... not through a mandatory tax... the money of which I will have no control over who it helps or how well it is used. It takes the heart out of helping one another.

I want to see the smiles of those I help... not pay a bill and hope it makes it to someone who needs it. (unlikely)

But you don't understand that here in the UK, we have a world class fully nationalise health care system. It costs less per person than the US, and everyone gets treatment - for free.

I really could not be a bigger fan of it, it's the UK's greatest treasure imo.