More than Health Care

[Birka]

I recently posted this in a local forum where politics are occasionally discussed.

With all the talk of health care plans, why not more?

"Lets forget about the "plan" for a moment. Why is all this only about health care? Aren't there more important things than health care?

I will attempt to rank daily living needs:

1. Air, hard for government to regulate, so mostly free.

2. Water, much more important than health care, shouldn't the government pay for all our water. I have to pay for mine. Can't live more than a few days without water.

3. Food, can't live more than a week or so without food. The government should give us all free food.

4. Shelter, we all need a place to live, warm in the winter, cool in the summer. Free housing should be available to all.

5. A Job. Government should guarantee us all a job. A well paying, room to advance, job.

6. Transportation. Have to get to that job, so the government should provide us all a free car, van or truck.

7. Day care. If you have children, how are you going to do your guaranteed job if you don't have free government day care?

8. Education. A free education, up to the level you want. If you want a college degree, it should be free. Graduate level, for free. Why not?

9. Now is where Health Care should fit in, IMO.

After these basic needs are provided by the government, what is next could be up for discussion. Here are a few things I would like.

Steelers Tickets

Free Cable and internet access

Allman Brothers Band playing in Blair Co. ballpark


Here is a link to read up on the hierarchy of needs, maybe we can think up a few more that the government can take care of for us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%...archy_of_needs

[Lahtari]

It is always funny to tell this to an ordinary citizen of a Social Democratic state, who commonly believes things like that no channel would show culture-programs without the national TV, or that the day care would not work without the government providing it. Of course no-one else shows culture programs or offers day care services - only a fool would compete with a government monopoly or with stuff that is offered for free.

This just shows that there is no rationale in nationalizing fields of business, it is an arbitrary line of thought that has laissez-faire in the other end and communism in the other.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Don't forget cell phones, which the government now provides for free to all low/no income people

[Loki]

Funny post but it's not a valid comparison, unfortunately. Food, air, water, etc is readily available. Medical care needs to be administered by an educated professional. Healthcare is more important than things like a job or education. You can survive without a job and a university degree, but not without a life-saving operation.

Having said all that, I'm in favour of subsidised education as well. The current system yet again favours those who can afford to enrol their kids into good educational institutions. It's an unfair advantage to the privileged and maintains and exacerbates social inequality.

[Groenewolf]

It is always funny to tell this to an ordinary citizen of a Social Democratic state, who commonly believes things like that no channel would show culture-programs without the national TV, or that the day care would not work without the government providing it. Of course no-one else shows culture programs or offers day care services - only a fool would compete with a government monopoly or with stuff that is offered for free.

Lets keep it to culture. It is probaly true that the comercial stations do not offer much of what can be considerd High Culture. But that is mostly because it hardly apeals to the masses who rater watch to Dirty of Christina Aquilira or gangsta rap then listen to a concert of Mozart, Hayden, Wager, ect..

And the public channels and goverment are not much better. They long ago abonded the idea of lifting up the masses. And instead resorted to broadcasting/funding that kind of Low Culture as well. Sometimes they have an inetresting documentary but that is all. And for the religious TV-churchservices.

Having said all that, I'm in favour of subsidised education as well. The current system yet again favours those who can afford to enrol their kids into good educational institutions. It's an unfair advantage to the privileged and maintains and exacerbates social inequality.

Lets presume a society in wich the nurture facot is perfect. Everyones inborn inteligence is trained to the max. Since in such circumstances nature would be the most deciding factor it would create a group of geneticaly privileged upperclass who will get in the best paying jobs and gather to most political influence.

your kind of thinking have lead to Afirmative Action programs in the USA in wich underqaulified non-Europeans get bonuspoints and may preform according to a lowerd standard because they come from a nonprivilegded background.

This is the same reason why in Japan private school started to outcompete the public schools. Because the public schools had to conform to the ideas of socialist/social-democratic politicians.

This of course does not mean that there should not be funds avaible to help highly gifted from a social-economic disadvanged background.

[Loki]

your kind of thinking have lead to Afirmative Action programs in the USA in wich underqaulified non-Europeans get bonuspoints and may preform according to a lowerd standard because they come from a nonprivilegded background.

Not really. If Europeans are indeed inherently superior to the rest, then why do they require unequal starting blocks in the race of life? My argument is that everyone should start in the same fashion, on the same level. If someone then excels and rise above the other, it would be because of genuine superiority, not artifically created "superiority" of a rich ruling class whose children start miles ahead of everyone else.

[Groenewolf]

Not really. If Europeans are indeed inherently superior to the rest, then why do they require unequal starting blocks in the race of life?

If certain non-European groups are equal to use in capicty then why do they need bonuspoints or why are they alowed to preform at a lower level?

Small question do you believe inteligence is mostly nature or nurture based?

Your stance would I think require that every child born being taken away from its parents to prevent it from gaining advantege from whatever succes it's parents might have gained. with other words that all childeren are raised by the state. But even if we make the nurture circumstance equal for all the starting blocks will be unequal since certain humans will be more inteligent then other humans and have a greater change to do well in life.

Unless this is your vision of society :

[YOUTUBE]Vi6TTNKdgSk[/YOUTUBE]

My argument is that everyone should start in the same fashion, on the same level. If someone then excels and rise above the other, it would be because of genuine superiority, not artifically created "superiority" of a rich ruling class whose children start miles ahead of everyone else.

Even a rich class need to have childeren who are inteligent enough to maintain or expand that wealth. That they receive a better nurture is beyond doubt, but without the good nature that would be to no avail. The familyfortune would still be lost thanks to one generation of imbeciels, combined or not with bad caretakers.

That is the problem with liberalism, it starts from the presumption that everyone should have an equal start in life, but in the end can not deal with the unequal outcomes. Because people are not truly equal to begin with. Since inteligence is for a large part heritable.

And besides like I said I am pro making funds avaible for those highly-intelligent of a social-economic disadvangted background.

[Lahtari]

Lets keep it to culture. It is probaly true that the comercial stations do not offer much of what can be considerd High Culture. But that is mostly because it hardly apeals to the masses who rater watch to Dirty of Christina Aquilira or gangsta rap then listen to a concert of Mozart, Hayden, Wager, ect..

It is however funny, that at least in Finland there's plenty of people who are afraid of losing their National broadcast company when asked about the TV fee (which is mandatory for all TV watchers, regardless if they want to watch the national channels or not). It makes me question, if the company was privatized, why wouldn't it's leaders just continue airing those programs if there's so much demand? On the other hand, if there isn't enough demand for them, are those people really afraid that the public wouldn't want to fund their four channels of documentaries, leftist-oriented discussion programs and cultured movies if they wouldn't be forced to?

And the public channels and goverment are not much better. They long ago abonded the idea of lifting up the masses. And instead resorted to broadcasting/funding that kind of Low Culture as well.

Yes, public institutions have a need of making themselves appear as needed. After they start losing viewers for showing crap that no-one likes to watch (but is forced to pay for), this is the result.

[Manifest Destiny]

I recently posted this in a local forum where politics are occasionally discussed.

With all the talk of health care plans, why not more?

"Lets forget about the "plan" for a moment. Why is all this only about health care? Aren't there more important things than health care?

I will attempt to rank daily living needs:

1. Air, hard for government to regulate, so mostly free.

2. Water, much more important than health care, shouldn't the government pay for all our water. I have to pay for mine. Can't live more than a few days without water.

3. Food, can't live more than a week or so without food. The government should give us all free food.

4. Shelter, we all need a place to live, warm in the winter, cool in the summer. Free housing should be available to all.

5. A Job. Government should guarantee us all a job. A well paying, room to advance, job.

6. Transportation. Have to get to that job, so the government should provide us all a free car, van or truck.

7. Day care. If you have children, how are you going to do your guaranteed job if you don't have free government day care?

8. Education. A free education, up to the level you want. If you want a college degree, it should be free. Graduate level, for free. Why not?

9. Now is where Health Care should fit in, IMO.

After these basic needs are provided by the government, what is next could be up for discussion. Here are a few things I would like.

Steelers Tickets

Free Cable and internet access

Allman Brothers Band playing in Blair Co. ballpark


Here is a link to read up on the hierarchy of needs, maybe we can think up a few more that the government can take care of for us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%...archy_of_needs

You forgot electricity/heating oil! I'm starting to believe that all human history is a lie, since we couldn't have possibly survived this long without taxpayer-subsidized electricity and heating oil!

[Lahtari]

Food, air, water, etc is readily available. Medical care needs to be administered by an educated professional.

Food needs to be produced by a farmer, transferred by a truck driver and preserved and sold by a shopkeeper. Water needs to be taken from somewhere, purified and pumped by a technician using pipes built and maintained by plumbers, and the system needs to be planned by an engineer. Those things don't grow on trees either. If they would be nationalized, either their quality would drop or their price (in the form of taxes) would rise.

Supporting poor people in their health care expenses is of course another thing, though I could imagine this could be function through charities as well if all the useless "aid" collections to developing countries would be channeled to domestic charity. But I find this whole "it is a governments responsibility to keep it's citizens alive and well"-philosophy more than just a bit dangerous. Using a safety belt - and here even a bicycle helmet - is mandatory because... if you get hurt, the government has to pay for your hospitalization. Smoking is heavily regulated because... if you get lung cancer the government has to pay for your treatment. Not to speak about the loss of tax revenues while the person is away from work. This arbitrary line of thought leads to an authoritarian nanny-state where people's rights are restricted because government profits, and which sees the people as just a little more than production animals.