9 ms·

While this is admirable, public health should be funded by the public through taxes and not the whims of the 1%.

by zoowar 14y ago

cleverjake 14y ago
I dont think anyone is suggesting it should be paid through the 'whims of the 1%'
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ck2 14y ago
The problem is entire generations of people voting against themselves are going to have to die off before that happens in this country. Meanwhile at least hundreds of thousands of kids in SF bay area have a chance not to get the flu this year and spread it everywhere thanks to one man's generosity and thoughtfulness.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- cglace 14y ago
  How do you figure the people are voting against themselves? Do you know what their preferences are or what they value?
- beagle3 14y ago
  My parents used to think the same thing. But somehow, newer generations keep voting against their own interests. The realization that many people are not actually smart enough to figure their own interests came to me about 10 years ago, and the world made a lot more sense since then. (the late George Carlin reasoned thus: "Think how dumb the average person is; and now realize that half the population is even dumber than that". It's true, if you assume "dumbness" distribution is symmetric around the mean. Or, just replace "average" with median and it's true by definition.)
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. This doesn't make them stupid. If anything, like when Gates or Buffett talk about how they should be made personally worse off, it shows the courage of their own convictions.
    - zem 14y ago
      yes, but bill gates and warren buffet have good, sound reasons that might go against their selfish interests, but leave society as a whole better off. the anti-health-care people have no such reasons, and if they think they do they're badly misinformed, stupid, spiteful (because free healthcare would mean "undeserving" people get a "free ride"), or some mixture of the above.
      - Dove 14y ago
        anti-health-care people have no such reasons If you think it's that one-sided, you need to spend more time listening to the opposition. Here are some good reasons to oppose public health care: - It will be more expensive due to government inefficiency - There will be no incentive to innovate - Health care run by government bureaucrats will be uncompassionate, due to distance from the community, and may not appropriately value human life and suffering - A government that owns your health care can deny it to you - Public health care options compete unfairly with private ones You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive.
        beagle3 14y ago
        > You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive. Actually, a person has to be willingly uninformed to find them persuasive. Because there are actually case studies to be made, rather than evaluate ideas in vacuum: - more expensive: It costs much less in every other country that has a single payer system, despite government inefficiency (including the Swiss and German system, where everything is private even though it's single payer, and the UK, France and Israel where it is public or private, and in Canada where it is completely public). And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement. - innovation: Those places all comparable innovation to the US (especially if normalized to "average entrepreneurship level" of the country - e.g. there's much less of that in Germany and France in general, but actually much more in Israel) - uncompassionate: That is demonstrably not true in the above countries. Furthermore, the private system in the US is already demonstrably not compassionate in any way. - government can deny health care: Government can do anything it pleases, like jail you, or confiscate all money not on your person at a press of a button (and if you're going through texas, all money on your person as well. Oops, can't pay for healthcare! private healthcare denied for you!) - that's a strawman. If you look at Switzerland, Japan, UK, France, Canada, ..., people who get on the wrong side of the government get better healthcare than people on the right side of the government in the US. No one is denied healthcare! The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. - Unfair competition: That's your only statement that is not demonstrably false using a counterexample. In fact, it's true. That's because it makes healthcare into a utility, much like schooling and water supply. So, one reason that is not based on demonstrably false assumptions. That one is debatable; some people think healthcare should be available like schools, others do not. That should be what is being discussed, not the other reasons. I actually listened to the other side, and heard one other good reason to avoid public health care: - There is no reason people who care about their health should subsidize people who don't take care of their health (w.r.t exercise, nutrition, alcohol and drug consumption, regular medical attention, etc) as the latter consume much more healthcare services. Which is again debatable: The same is true for basically every other shared cost facility (including utilities, fire services, police forces, road use, ...) If the debate was around that, I would be happy. But somehow, in American politics, it has always been improper to bring up facts and case studies. And recently, it is becoming bad form to use logic.
throwit1979 14y ago
So... Coerced charity is better than actual charity? If I do good deed X at the point of a gun, I am a better person than someone who does it of their own accord? Really?
- wilfra 14y ago
  Yes.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Any contractual obligation, any transaction, is implicitly backed by the threat of violence. If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than government assistance, you believe "coerced charity" is better. You got anything better than platitudes?
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    The difference is that a person can opt-out of a transaction or contract in free enterprise. Don't sign the contract, and there's no threat of violence, implicit or otherwise. On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      Of course you can-- you can move somewhere else. But you'll be likely to find that places without "government coercion", i.e. government, are not as much nicer as you had imagined. Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out. Not really seeing the difference here.
      - jlarocco 14y ago
        "Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out." <sarcasm>Well then they can move somewhere else...</sarcasm> What you're describing isn't free enterprise, so it's disingenuous to use it as an example as if it's the normal case. I could use North Korea as an example of excessive government, but I'm not because I realize it's not the usual case.
DigitalJack 14y ago
Sadly all the money that could have paid for this went to buying air puffers for the TSA that now sit in a warehouse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005599.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12...
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  There are a lot of things you could pay for if you gutted the TSA. Unfortunately, most people (including many very intelligent and educated individuals) continue to believe in security theater, and the companies that profit off of it know how to keep up the propaganda so the people don't realize they're being duped out of millions of dollars in wasted tax revenue.
driverdan 14y ago
Shame on you for turning an act of charity into a political argument.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I disagree. I find it a valid observation of the other side of this situation. And, personally, I did not sign up on HN in order to pat Larry Page on the back. (However generous and necessary his action was. The other side of this situation is that public society could not manage this basic -- and ultimately, even self-serving, keeping incidents of flu and associated loss of not just well-being but also productivity, for those who view things in dollars and cents -- service for itself. (See? If it hadn't been for all those ear infections in my infancy, perhaps I could write a coherent sentence. ;-) ) As I reflect upon this, I imagine Page might well be one of the first to agree with this. Perhaps precisely why he made the donation. So, there too, this story invites the conversation. Why did Page do this? Is there an underlying circumstance perhaps worthy of discussion? I'd say, yes. P.S. Just to note: I did not vote you down. I'm interested in the conversation this engenders, not in karma/ranking. :-) I don't mean to sound as if I'm bashing you (in case I nonetheless come across this way); I'm interested in perspectives on whether society, through its government, should be capable of and indeed executing such a program for itself. For my part, I don't think the shots should be forced upon people. (Which has been a problem, at times.) But I think a good, balanced, and truly informative campaign on the topic of vaccinations should be executed, and that for those in hardship, at the least, low or no cost access to vaccinations should be offered. It doesn't just serve them; it serves us all. (Although I'm of somewhat mixed view of the merit of flu vaccinations for the wholesale population, myself.)
- king_jester 14y ago
  It should be noted that charity is very political, so it is not surprising someone would talk about in that context. After all, charity attempts to make up for shortfall in social and political systems and institutions.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jerf 14y ago
"public health should be funded by the public through taxes" But they didn't. You might want to consider thinking about that for a while. It's actually very, very important.
- dbaupp 14y ago
  I can't parse your comment, could you clarify? (Possibly, "They[the public] didn't [fund public health through taxes]"?)
mikeash 14y ago
Why would you even post this comment in this thread?

While this is admirable, public health should be funded by the public through taxes and not the whims of the 1%.

by zoowar 14y ago

While this is admirable, public health should be funded by the public through taxes and not the whims of the 1%.

cleverjake 14y ago

I dont think anyone is suggesting it should be paid through the 'whims of the 1%'

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ck2 14y ago

The problem is entire generations of people voting against themselves are going to have to die off before that happens in this country. Meanwhile at least hundreds of thousands of kids in SF bay area have a chance not to get the flu this year and spread it everywhere thanks to one man's generosity and thoughtfulness.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cglace 14y ago
How do you figure the people are voting against themselves? Do you know what their preferences are or what they value?
beagle3 14y ago
My parents used to think the same thing. But somehow, newer generations keep voting against their own interests. The realization that many people are not actually smart enough to figure their own interests came to me about 10 years ago, and the world made a lot more sense since then. (the late George Carlin reasoned thus: "Think how dumb the average person is; and now realize that half the population is even dumber than that". It's true, if you assume "dumbness" distribution is symmetric around the mean. Or, just replace "average" with median and it's true by definition.)
- danielweber 14y ago
  Saying "voting against their own interests" is really insulting. Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up? Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. This doesn't make them stupid. If anything, like when Gates or Buffett talk about how they should be made personally worse off, it shows the courage of their own convictions.
  - zem 14y ago
    yes, but bill gates and warren buffet have good, sound reasons that might go against their selfish interests, but leave society as a whole better off. the anti-health-care people have no such reasons, and if they think they do they're badly misinformed, stupid, spiteful (because free healthcare would mean "undeserving" people get a "free ride"), or some mixture of the above.
    - Dove 14y ago
      anti-health-care people have no such reasons If you think it's that one-sided, you need to spend more time listening to the opposition. Here are some good reasons to oppose public health care: - It will be more expensive due to government inefficiency - There will be no incentive to innovate - Health care run by government bureaucrats will be uncompassionate, due to distance from the community, and may not appropriately value human life and suffering - A government that owns your health care can deny it to you - Public health care options compete unfairly with private ones You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        > You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive. Actually, a person has to be willingly uninformed to find them persuasive. Because there are actually case studies to be made, rather than evaluate ideas in vacuum: - more expensive: It costs much less in every other country that has a single payer system, despite government inefficiency (including the Swiss and German system, where everything is private even though it's single payer, and the UK, France and Israel where it is public or private, and in Canada where it is completely public). And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement. - innovation: Those places all comparable innovation to the US (especially if normalized to "average entrepreneurship level" of the country - e.g. there's much less of that in Germany and France in general, but actually much more in Israel) - uncompassionate: That is demonstrably not true in the above countries. Furthermore, the private system in the US is already demonstrably not compassionate in any way. - government can deny health care: Government can do anything it pleases, like jail you, or confiscate all money not on your person at a press of a button (and if you're going through texas, all money on your person as well. Oops, can't pay for healthcare! private healthcare denied for you!) - that's a strawman. If you look at Switzerland, Japan, UK, France, Canada, ..., people who get on the wrong side of the government get better healthcare than people on the right side of the government in the US. No one is denied healthcare! The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before. - Unfair competition: That's your only statement that is not demonstrably false using a counterexample. In fact, it's true. That's because it makes healthcare into a utility, much like schooling and water supply. So, one reason that is not based on demonstrably false assumptions. That one is debatable; some people think healthcare should be available like schools, others do not. That should be what is being discussed, not the other reasons. I actually listened to the other side, and heard one other good reason to avoid public health care: - There is no reason people who care about their health should subsidize people who don't take care of their health (w.r.t exercise, nutrition, alcohol and drug consumption, regular medical attention, etc) as the latter consume much more healthcare services. Which is again debatable: The same is true for basically every other shared cost facility (including utilities, fire services, police forces, road use, ...) If the debate was around that, I would be happy. But somehow, in American politics, it has always been improper to bring up facts and case studies. And recently, it is becoming bad form to use logic.

throwit1979 14y ago

So... Coerced charity is better than actual charity? If I do good deed X at the point of a gun, I am a better person than someone who does it of their own accord? Really?

wilfra 14y ago
Yes.
Cushman 14y ago
Any contractual obligation, any transaction, is implicitly backed by the threat of violence. If you believe free enterprise can be more effective than government assistance, you believe "coerced charity" is better. You got anything better than platitudes?
- jlarocco 14y ago
  The difference is that a person can opt-out of a transaction or contract in free enterprise. Don't sign the contract, and there's no threat of violence, implicit or otherwise. On the other hand, there's no way for a person to opt-out of government coercion.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Of course you can-- you can move somewhere else. But you'll be likely to find that places without "government coercion", i.e. government, are not as much nicer as you had imagined. Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out. Not really seeing the difference here.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      "Many millions of people are materially dependent on individual corporations, with no meaningful ability to opt out." <sarcasm>Well then they can move somewhere else...</sarcasm> What you're describing isn't free enterprise, so it's disingenuous to use it as an example as if it's the normal case. I could use North Korea as an example of excessive government, but I'm not because I realize it's not the usual case.

DigitalJack 14y ago

Sadly all the money that could have paid for this went to buying air puffers for the TSA that now sit in a warehouse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005599.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12...

w1ntermute 14y ago
There are a lot of things you could pay for if you gutted the TSA. Unfortunately, most people (including many very intelligent and educated individuals) continue to believe in security theater, and the companies that profit off of it know how to keep up the propaganda so the people don't realize they're being duped out of millions of dollars in wasted tax revenue.

driverdan 14y ago

Shame on you for turning an act of charity into a political argument.

pasbesoin 14y ago
I disagree. I find it a valid observation of the other side of this situation. And, personally, I did not sign up on HN in order to pat Larry Page on the back. (However generous and necessary his action was. The other side of this situation is that public society could not manage this basic -- and ultimately, even self-serving, keeping incidents of flu and associated loss of not just well-being but also productivity, for those who view things in dollars and cents -- service for itself. (See? If it hadn't been for all those ear infections in my infancy, perhaps I could write a coherent sentence. ;-) ) As I reflect upon this, I imagine Page might well be one of the first to agree with this. Perhaps precisely why he made the donation. So, there too, this story invites the conversation. Why did Page do this? Is there an underlying circumstance perhaps worthy of discussion? I'd say, yes. P.S. Just to note: I did not vote you down. I'm interested in the conversation this engenders, not in karma/ranking. :-) I don't mean to sound as if I'm bashing you (in case I nonetheless come across this way); I'm interested in perspectives on whether society, through its government, should be capable of and indeed executing such a program for itself. For my part, I don't think the shots should be forced upon people. (Which has been a problem, at times.) But I think a good, balanced, and truly informative campaign on the topic of vaccinations should be executed, and that for those in hardship, at the least, low or no cost access to vaccinations should be offered. It doesn't just serve them; it serves us all. (Although I'm of somewhat mixed view of the merit of flu vaccinations for the wholesale population, myself.)
king_jester 14y ago
It should be noted that charity is very political, so it is not surprising someone would talk about in that context. After all, charity attempts to make up for shortfall in social and political systems and institutions.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jerf 14y ago

"public health should be funded by the public through taxes" But they didn't. You might want to consider thinking about that for a while. It's actually very, very important.

dbaupp 14y ago
I can't parse your comment, could you clarify? (Possibly, "They[the public] didn't [fund public health through taxes]"?)

mikeash 14y ago

Why would you even post this comment in this thread?