I think the distinction between governmental redistribution and private redistribution is important. I am in favor of virtually every form of private redistribution that people choose to engage in. I am in favor of fewer forms of governmental redistribution. To answer your questions directly, firefighting and police services have characteristics of public goods that make me think they might be better provided by governments than markets, but I'm not sure. Preferring that the government provide certain services needn't commit one to preferring that governments provide every service, though.

What about you? Do you think the difference between governmental redistribution and private redistribution matters at all?

Repeal EMTALA! ;-P

Where is this hypothetical system devoid of a "rationing" mechanism that ye speak of? Just so we are comparing the same baseline.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...tive_Labor_Act

Sorry, I assumed if you didn't know what it meant that you would google it.

I would appreciate your pointing me to where "the first part" (I'm not sure what this refers to) was refuted.

I think there is an important difference between saying "they are not charged for the service" and "they are taxed for the service" that does not exist when one chooses between saying "Obamacare" or "the PPACA." You are free to disagree, but unless you can make a more compelling case than this, I don't think you will change my mind.

Imagine if, instead of "Obamacare," people began to call it "the health care plan designed and passed by Rick Santorum, along with a Republican Congress." Would you object to this phrasing, even if "adults with reasonable understandings of reality" realized that it referred to the PPACA?

Do you really think that those who favor the policy you're mocking here have no compassion for the sick? If you do, I think you should strongly consider the possibility that you have a malformed view of a great many people.

Scale, bra, scale. Private provision of ANYTHING is dwarfed by government, and in most cases polluted by rents, monopolies, and profits. Do you WANT to go back to 1920s medicine? Drop Medicare and public employee insurance from any hospital and watch it go bankrupt the next month. We all want longer, healthier lives, except maybe Lirva aspiring for marijuana induced early-onset emphysema. I would prefer it had the most access for the lowest cost focused on optimal ooutcomes. There is no way to negotiate person to person, group to group, and achieve an efficient, scalable outcome without the authority and finance of the gubmint.

Thats what they teach in Sunday School and Fifth grade US History. Those guys who **** at the mouth talking about oaths and duty end up losing dog-catcher races to the mayor's illegitimate minority children.

This is an excellent framing of the tradeoff here and explains much about why we see such moralistic and virulent disagreement on the issue of which choice we should make. Compassion vs karma.

http://righteousmind.com/haidt-talk-...festival-2011/

Go to 22:20.

In France you get treatment. You SEE a doctor, even if you can't get to the hospital, they come to your goddamn house in a Prius. You don't go to a US emergency room and wait 3 hours with a rusty nail in your prostate. Health care money is spent on health care, not 8 figure bonuses, fancy waiting rooms, alimony for 4 wives, or lobbying Congress. Ask a median income frenchie if they want French health care or American?

I had private insurance and was told I'd have to wait 5 months for hernia surgery. Didn't think it was any big deal since I wasn't in pain and had been living with it for a while anyway. Which is basically the same thing that happens in Canada, France, etc.

But oh man someone somewhere in the US on a Cadillac plan or who's willing to pay cash can get their hernia surgery now! Clearly we have the superior system.

Or ask a Medicare recipient if they want Medicare or to buy their own private insurance. Or ask a VA patient if he would rather keep his VA benefits or buy his own private insurance.

Do we want to know how you got the hernia?

What is that other system without that rationing mechanism?

Genetics? My dad had the same thing. It's just an opening in your muscle wall that your innards push through - doesn't have to come from any action.

Consciousness and the self are epiphenomena, no more capable of giving rise to free wills than a rock or tree. If it were true that every single post I made was condescending/patronizing, then it would also be true that I couldn't help it. I dispute the premise though.

I think I understand. You're mad because you think I have an inappropriately high opinion of myself and would like to knock me down a peg or two. Is that about right?

I'm sorry you thought it was bitchy. I just wanted to make sure that the person I was talking to understood what I'd said.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intention. As I insinuated in the paragraph I think you're referring to, I don't see myself as "arguing" for a position any more than an elementary school teacher "argues" that 2 + 2 = 4 to a class full of five-year-olds. You can learn from me or not, but whether you do or don't has no bearing on whether what I'm saying is correct.

I don't expect this explanation will make you like me any more, but hopefully it will at least help you to understand the mindset I have when adopting the attitude that so offends you.

Low Key made an assertion which caused me to suspect that he might not understand this.

It's possible that no such misunderstanding was going on, but I thought it worth a few moments to make sure.

Yeah, and I'm sure the multimillionaire canadian/frenchie/german/swede is going to be slumming it in line with the poor people waiting for his hernia surgery, damn UHC! what's the point of even being rich?

It's not hard for me to understand why you consider yourself a liberal. Displays of dominance and authority offend you, don't they? I don't mean to suggest that this is a bad thing. A society composed entirely of people with the same moral palate would be unimaginably dull, I think. That or unmitigated chaos.

I would make the same comment to you that I made to suzzer99. Do you really think that those who favor the policy you oppose are primarily motivated by self-interest rather than an honest assessment of what's best for society? If so, I think you should strongly consider the possibility that you have a malformed view of a great many people.

I don't think there is one, which was kind of my point. The only way you can get rid of rationing is if you get rid of scarcity. suzzer99 appeared to be implying that he did not think any French citizens were denied care because of rationing. This is an outrageously stupid belief, obviously, so I just wanted to make sure that he did not actually believe it.

I'm in favor of repealing non-sequiturs in the politics forum

Are you in favor of repealing band-aids?

You don't strike me as the kind of person who lets new or accurate information shape your positions. See below:

The evidence that the french are denied health care is that they are never denied health care.

Ok.. I'm not sure how to even approach this on any level that would get a person who thinks this to possibly consider changing their minds.

Am I to understand, then, that you consider yourself a socialist?

Not in the slightest, but that is more due to the technological advances that have been made since that time than because of a belief in the superiority of the delivery method we have come to use.

If I told you that this would be a good thing, what would your immediate reaction be? Do you consider that possibility completely unthinkable, or are you able to compose an argument for it, albeit one you may not agree with?

Exactly! If you agree that we all want the same thing, then what are some conclusions that can be drawn from the observation that people disagree very vehemently about how best to obtain that thing?

You may be right about this. I'm not sure your confidence is warranted though. Can you outline the counterargument to this claim, or are you unaware that one exists?

The more i see US conservatives general disinterest and or completely ignoring how the rest of the developed world can provide a respectable level of healthcare to all citizens while doing it significantly cheaper than the US - I'm reminded of the behavioral economic studies where they show that people would rather make significantly less income but more than the people they know, then make significantly more but less than the people they know.

The two statements: "Healthcare rationing exists everywhere, even in France" and "Everyone in France is entitled to and receives upon demand X level of basic healthcare" are not mutually exclusive. I don't see that Low Key stated otherwise in his post. In fact, reading his post it appears as though he is actually acknowledging the notion that health care, at least on some level, is rationed in France. But you did a good job of beating the living **** out of that strawman so kudos are appropriately extended.

Spladle ladies and gentlemen