3 ms·

These questions are long settled Don't you find it even just a little curious that in every other developed nation, the questions have been settled in a differ

These questions are long settled Don't you find it even just a little curious that in every other developed nation, the questions have been settled in a different way? where private property rights intrude, some sort of collective protection of private property is required My body is the most important piece of property I own. If the government protects some of my property (e.g. my house, from a fire), why does it not protect the most important piece?

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Don't you find it even just a little odd that in every other developed nation, the questions have been settled in a different way? Gosh no, because I don't mix up discretionary spending with required spending. We spend lots on things we like to do, like sports stadiums, airports, etc. There's no reason we can't choose to spend some money on something like healthcare. I just wouldn't mix expenses like that up with expenses like the local vice squad. My body is the most important piece of property I own. If the government protects some of my property (e.g. my house, from a fire), why does it not protect the most important piece? Once again, these questions are long settled. Your body is indeed the most precious thing you own, and the government's obligation to protect your body ends in two places: at your skin (meaning the government really has no business telling you how to treat your body) and at your neighbor's property (meaning your right to live doesn't include stealing food from the neighbor's farm) Once again, that doesn't mean that we can't help hungry or ill people. Of course we can. It just means that it's not the same kind of necessary invasion of private property as, say, drafting your kid and sending him off to war because the nation is in danger.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  I think, at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I am actually somewhat optimistic that America will one day have a universal single-payer healthcare system, but I can see I'm rather unlikely to ever convince you that's a good thing ;)
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I think we're actually very close. How about requiring the states to work it out on a state-by-state basis? The feds could set the standards, define the problem, and let some kind of distributed processing system attempt to solve it (instead of a one-size fits all approach that sits in stone and can't easily be changed) I've always thought that most people aren't very far apart on most issues -- it's just the politics, emotions, and posturing that keeps screwing conversations up (and I speak for myself as much as anybody else) But yes, agreeing to disagree is probably a good thing to do. :)
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      What you described is how Canada works. Most people seem to think we have a federal health care system - we do not. Each province has its own health system, the only federal requirement is that they have peering agreements (so you can travel freely without fear of health care). I've seen cases where people who are hospitalized in more expensive parts of Canada are transferred back to their home province (paid by the health care system of course). It works remarkably well - and from the few Brits I've seen comment on both, it's likely better than the NHS in Britain, which is the monolithic approach you fear. For one thing, health care management is handled at a much more local level, where individual voting districts actually matter, and coverage levels better suited to the local environmental, cultural, etc, requirements.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Don't you find it even just a little odd that in every other developed nation, the questions have been settled in a different way? Gosh no, because I don't mix up discretionary spending with required spending. We spend lots on things we like to do, like sports stadiums, airports, etc. There's no reason we can't choose to spend some money on something like healthcare. I just wouldn't mix expenses like that up with expenses like the local vice squad. My body is the most important piece of property I own. If the government protects some of my property (e.g. my house, from a fire), why does it not protect the most important piece? Once again, these questions are long settled. Your body is indeed the most precious thing you own, and the government's obligation to protect your body ends in two places: at your skin (meaning the government really has no business telling you how to treat your body) and at your neighbor's property (meaning your right to live doesn't include stealing food from the neighbor's farm) Once again, that doesn't mean that we can't help hungry or ill people. Of course we can. It just means that it's not the same kind of necessary invasion of private property as, say, drafting your kid and sending him off to war because the nation is in danger.

abstractbill 17y ago
I think, at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I am actually somewhat optimistic that America will one day have a universal single-payer healthcare system, but I can see I'm rather unlikely to ever convince you that's a good thing ;)
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I think we're actually very close. How about requiring the states to work it out on a state-by-state basis? The feds could set the standards, define the problem, and let some kind of distributed processing system attempt to solve it (instead of a one-size fits all approach that sits in stone and can't easily be changed) I've always thought that most people aren't very far apart on most issues -- it's just the politics, emotions, and posturing that keeps screwing conversations up (and I speak for myself as much as anybody else) But yes, agreeing to disagree is probably a good thing to do. :)
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    What you described is how Canada works. Most people seem to think we have a federal health care system - we do not. Each province has its own health system, the only federal requirement is that they have peering agreements (so you can travel freely without fear of health care). I've seen cases where people who are hospitalized in more expensive parts of Canada are transferred back to their home province (paid by the health care system of course). It works remarkably well - and from the few Brits I've seen comment on both, it's likely better than the NHS in Britain, which is the monolithic approach you fear. For one thing, health care management is handled at a much more local level, where individual voting districts actually matter, and coverage levels better suited to the local environmental, cultural, etc, requirements.