Re: Art for art's sake
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:18 pm
Bimmercat wrote:
> Now, they're trying again to pass a socialized medicine plan,
> like what you have down under or in the UK or Canada. Funny,
> but everyone I meet from countries with these "free" health
> plans do nothing but complain of how shitty the service is and
> how its simply not worth it. Its also not "free" as some would
> have you think. Look at your tax rates...you ARE paying for it.
> I just pray it never sees the light of day here in the USA, but
> several Democrats are pushing it (one of many of my problems
> with the Democrat Party).
yes we are paying for 'it' and generally speaking, we're happy to do so, as long as our money is being spent effectively where it really counts - i.e. on the patient, not legions of bureaucrats.
why are we happy to do so? because culturally speaking, it is widely perceived as being of benefit not only to ourselves, as individuals, but to the health of society as a whole. how come? well, most of us still like to think that there is such a thing as society and that having a free-at-the-point-of-delivery system is inherently more moral, not say more pleasant, than being hassled about what plan you're on or whether your cc details pan out, when the main thing on everyones mind is whether this is possibly the big one or not...
btw, i note your use of the phrase 'socialised medicine' - a term coined by health insurance lobbyists, no doubt, to tap into propaganda led paranoia about state involvement in just about any aspect of society. given such a view of the world, maybe we should look at doing away with other state socialised entities such like the 'police' - contracting their duties out and putting them on piece rates. the army, too, would seem to be a candidate ripe for reform. who knows? perhaps american led private militias would be making a much better fist of it in iraq than the current bunch of state cosseted lackies?
as regards problems with the democrats, i'd have thought you'd be far more concerned with the manner in which the bush administration has managed in a few short years to take a healthy fiscal scenario and turn it into a $500 billion federal deficit and a projected $500 billion trade deficit come the november elections of next year! the democrats under clinton were economic einsteins by comparison!
> Now, they're trying again to pass a socialized medicine plan,
> like what you have down under or in the UK or Canada. Funny,
> but everyone I meet from countries with these "free" health
> plans do nothing but complain of how shitty the service is and
> how its simply not worth it. Its also not "free" as some would
> have you think. Look at your tax rates...you ARE paying for it.
> I just pray it never sees the light of day here in the USA, but
> several Democrats are pushing it (one of many of my problems
> with the Democrat Party).
yes we are paying for 'it' and generally speaking, we're happy to do so, as long as our money is being spent effectively where it really counts - i.e. on the patient, not legions of bureaucrats.
why are we happy to do so? because culturally speaking, it is widely perceived as being of benefit not only to ourselves, as individuals, but to the health of society as a whole. how come? well, most of us still like to think that there is such a thing as society and that having a free-at-the-point-of-delivery system is inherently more moral, not say more pleasant, than being hassled about what plan you're on or whether your cc details pan out, when the main thing on everyones mind is whether this is possibly the big one or not...
btw, i note your use of the phrase 'socialised medicine' - a term coined by health insurance lobbyists, no doubt, to tap into propaganda led paranoia about state involvement in just about any aspect of society. given such a view of the world, maybe we should look at doing away with other state socialised entities such like the 'police' - contracting their duties out and putting them on piece rates. the army, too, would seem to be a candidate ripe for reform. who knows? perhaps american led private militias would be making a much better fist of it in iraq than the current bunch of state cosseted lackies?
as regards problems with the democrats, i'd have thought you'd be far more concerned with the manner in which the bush administration has managed in a few short years to take a healthy fiscal scenario and turn it into a $500 billion federal deficit and a projected $500 billion trade deficit come the november elections of next year! the democrats under clinton were economic einsteins by comparison!