"socialized" medicine: not as bad as cons would have you believe.

[feuervogel]

In fact, it's a hundred, a thousand, times better than the system that killed Melissa Mia Hall, who had no insurance, as a freelance writer, and began suffering chest pains due to a heart attack and died in her home because she couldn't afford to go to the doctor, let alone the hospital.

To those of you who believe the free market can and should sort everything out, this is what you're advocating. If taxation is theft, free market health cover is murder.

Do you wonder why I, as a tenuously employed person with no health benefits of my own who aspires to be a freelance writer (as all novelists are) -- a job that almost never has health benefits -- would rather move 4400 miles, a 9-hour flight, and a 6 time-zone difference to a country that mandates health coverage and provides it for those who can't afford it themselves through taxation?

Germans aren't afraid of the social contract or of helping out those in need through vile governmental muggings in dark alleys taxation. Fucking American selfishness needs to die in a fire.

Comments

[feuervogel]

When I was in pharmacy school, I took bioethics as an elective. I was spectacularly unimpressed with the argument that withdrawing life support and letting the patient die (slowly over hours or days as they suffocate) was morally ambivalent and couldn't be called euthanasia because it's "letting nature take its course."

I view the GOP's position of continuing this free market experiment, refusing to consider taxation to cover universal health care, and overturning the ACA without any real alternative somewhat analogous to withdrawing life support and allowing the patient to die.

[jon-leonard.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting distinction between removing life support and not supplying it in the first case, and a number of grey areas involving the desires of the patient; but taking that at face value:

Is the party not-in-power really the responsible actor?

But to summarize what I understand of your position: There's no individual mandate to action, as that's covered in state action. Also, raising taxes has either trivial social costs, or costs small enough to be outweighed by the (assumed) benefits of universal health care.

Is that pretty close to what you mean? Obviously I disagree on a lot of it, but that's different from not understanding your position in the first place.

[feuervogel]

Is the party not-in-power really the responsible actor?

I don't understand the question.

I'd say that as human beings, we're obligated to help those who have less, so in that sense, we /are/ individually mandated to action, but that action can be carried out simply by paying taxes. I admire HCPs who volunteer at indigent clinics, but making free clinics unnecessary would be better. But the second half of your sentence works.

[jon-leonard.livejournal.com]

You blame the GOP for repealing ACA. As they don't control either the Senate or the Presidency, they can't repeal anything. So either political discussion is comparable to murder, or "repeal" means something other than it usually does. ("Attempt to repeal", "Suggestion to repeal", "Political grandstanding", maybe?)

I think I understand your position on a mandate to action: I don't view paying taxes as an action per-se, since it's sort of involuntary. But that's probably just a minor matter of wording.

Fundamentally I think I view the cost/benefit tradeoffs differently, and to a certain extent the mandate; I'd tend to argue from a utilitarian perspective, and I don't think things like the ACA actually improve things. But ... so it goes.

[feuervogel]

I would argue that the GOP has forced the ACA further rightward, despite being based on the GOP's own plan (alternative to "Hillarycare") from the mid-90s. Or quite similar to Romney's plan in Massachusetts. I think the ACA doesn't go nearly far enough, because of GOP resistance and GOP grandstanding and GOP lies like "death panels." So, yes, I can, in fact, consider the party that's out of power the responsible actor, because the Democrats are spineless wimps who triangulate and move rightward in the name of compromise when the GOP isn't acting in good faith in the slightest. The GOP holds all the power, whether they're in the majority or not.

IMO, the ACA improves things, but not nearly enough, and that's because the GOP forced it rightward (by holding the Senate to a mandatory 60-vote majority through threats of filibuster, as well as the lies of mouthpieces like Palin and Beck). There's not enough provisions for cost control; there are massive gimmes to the drug companies; there are so many sops to the insurance companies; it doesn't create Medicare for All.

But then, what do I know about health care? I'm just a health care provider and a socialist. And we're /never/ correct in this political climate, even though social health systems work fairly well throughout Europe.