US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Do you have a debate with these criminally insane or do you just do your best to marginalize and isolate them by spotlighting insane behaviors?

Personally, the funniest part of this debate is the wiliness for many of the Republican candidates to say the government has no right to control kids/parents in such a way, all the while being more than willing to control a woman's body if she is pregnant. The circumstances are not quite similar, but the underlying principle of governmental control over an individual’s body is the same.

[GundamFan0083]

I may not agree with him on most issues, but on this issue Senator Sanders and I are in agreement.

It is sad that this issue gets buried under useless political rhetoric.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Education is not just a tool for teaching bullshit government-mandated "skills" to the population in whatever way the government wants, it is also a symbol of meritocracy where the smartest, brightest and/or the most creative should deserve. And hence the degree signifies the position of the smartest man, if everyone is the smartest man then who is the best?

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit. It's supposed to be a symbol of merit and intelligence. However, I've seen far too many morons in my classes to think there's any level of intelligence left. I think I've used this example before, but in my 300 level Statistics class (note, that means third year/Junior level, not remedial or freshman level), someone actually asked, with full sincerity, what a slope was. And guess what? A high GPA produces the same degree as the lowest passing GPA.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I may not agree with him on most issues, but on this issue Senator Sanders and I are in agreement.

It is sad that this issue gets buried under useless political rhetoric.

I wonder what he means by "death sentence". Is everybody who isn't Japanese sentenced to death?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think Welfare states should provide what all people are going to need to pay for in their lifetimes, as well as a degree of insurance for worst case unexpected disasters.

So I think the sort of thing the Welfare state should pay for are:
*Healthcare
*Education
*Emergency Services
*Some form of unemployment insurance

i agree in principle but i would still make people pay a little something. People put more value on stuff they pay for vs getting something for free. if parent have to pay just a bit for their kids they might pay more attention to how their kids are doing in school.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I wonder what he means by "death sentence". Is everybody who isn't Japanese sentenced to death?

I may be wrong Anh_Minh, but I think he means that due to an inability to afford health care, live in a safer neighborhood (less crime), and be able to afford better food; poor people in the United States has a shorter life expectancy and are essentially being condemned to live in a way that is unacceptable in a country as wealthy as the US.

However, I could be wrong.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I may be wrong Anh_Minh, but I think he means that due to an inability to afford health care, live in a safer neighborhood (less crime), and be able to afford better food; poor people in the United States has a shorter life expectancy

But that's the thing - life expectancies are unequal. By itself, that fact means nothing.

That Americans pay more money for crappier healthcare - that lobbies keep the majority of Americans from getting their money's worth - matters more than knowing the rich get more stuff (including healthcare, education and so on) than the poor.

and are essentially being condemned to live in a way that is unacceptable in a country as wealthy as the US.

By what standard does one judge what is acceptable or not?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

By what standard does one judge what is acceptable or not?

You use a relative sliding scale and a determination of what is minimally needed for the chance to be successful in the country you reside in. Example: a hundred years ago, electricity and running water were optional in the US. Now they really aren't. Likewise, a broadband connection really isn't completely optional anymore if someone studying wants to have the same research opportunities in K-12 or have the skills needed in many jobs. If you are unable to get access to preventive healthcare, you are at a severe disadvantage throughout life from someone who has access (almost a third of the US has no access to preventive healthcare at all). Much of the US lacks any form of mass public transit: the entry cost to owning and legally running a car puts it out of reach for many. These factors and others combine to form impossible bootstrap situations for many individuals, unacceptable to a meritocracy where we want the best to rise for the benefit to the entire society.

We used to call the end-game of extreme conservatives the "Mexico model" --> a few hundred families control 99.9% of the wealth, influence, and resources. The other 99% of the country lives in abject poverty with no access to any resources that might let them exit that situation. Nowadays, there is a glimmer of a middle class there but the drug wars threaten to turn back the clock.

The "centerpoint" of the scale is different in the US (so far) but we are approaching the "Mexico model" with the rise of the ultra-rich, the demise of the middle class, and the dismantling of the public infrastructure and safety net for 99% of the population.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But that's the thing - life expectancies are unequal. By itself, that fact means nothing.

That Americans pay more money for crappier healthcare - that lobbies keep the majority of Americans from getting their money's worth - matters more than knowing the rich get more stuff (including healthcare, education and so on) than the poor.

We can assume that life expectancies are unequal for a reason. It could be a lot of reasons but the fact that the poor have less health insurance certainly plays a part in that. Discounting this fact completely seems to be a bit self-serving with your argument.

Well if you honestly think that person A, who isn't getting his money's worth but has decent and reliable insurance or "crappier than he should have" is worse off than person B, who doesn't have the money to pay for health insurance or gets truly substandard health insurance thereby leading to a possible decrease in his life expectancy, I worry about your moral character.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

We can assume that life expectancies are unequal for a reason. It could be a lot of reasons but the fact that the poor have less health insurance certainly plays a part in that.

So does the fact they have physically harder jobs and eat crappier food. None of which is germane.

Discounting this fact completely seems to be a bit self-serving with your argument.

I'm not discounting it. I'm saying that it's normal for some people to have a longer life expectancy than others, and that calling it a death sentence for the one with the shorter ones is hyperbolic at best, dishonest at worst.

I'm saying it is inevitable and that by itself, does not call for action.

Well if you honestly think that person A, who isn't getting his money's worth but has decent and reliable insurance or "crappier than he should have" is worse off than person B, who doesn't have the money to pay for health insurance or gets truly substandard health insurance thereby leading to a possible decrease in his life expectancy, I worry about your moral character.

It's not a matter of who's worse than whom. I'm not even talking about individuals, since, as far as I'm concerned, healthcare is a public concern (I'm French. To us, letting individuals and insurance companies sort it out between themselves without government input isn't even on the table.). Considering how much money you (Americans as a whole) pour into it, you ought to be able to get much better than what you're getting.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So does the fact they have physically harder jobs and eat crappier food. None of which is germane.

Well having physically harder jobs should not relate unless you believe the jobs are so much more physically stressful that they also decrease life expectancy then that certainly also can be an issue to be looked into.

By crappier food I assume you mean less nutritious. That certainly can be the case but everyone in America eats junk food and fast food a lot. Though I think the poorer you are it could certainly lead to a more unbalanced diet.

These issues might all contribute to the decreased life expectancy and thereby why we would have to look into ways to fix them.

I'm not discounting it. I'm saying that it's normal for some people to have a longer life expectancy than others, and that calling it a death sentence for the one with the shorter ones is hyperbolic at best, dishonest at worst.

I'm saying it is inevitable and that by itself, does not call for action.

I'm certain he used death sentence as a way of hammering home his point. I don't know if the use of it, even as a hyperbole, necessarily discredits any of his points about the disparity leading to lower quality of life, life expectancy and upwards social mobility in America.

I don't know if want you mean by "it is inevitable" as in the poor will always live worse lives, die earlier, and have little chance to advance so we should just get over that fact and move on. I'd like to think as a society we shouldn't be so cold blooded and act instead of shrugging it off to inevitability.

It's not a matter of who's worse than whom. I'm not even talking about individuals, since, as far as I'm concerned, healthcare is a public concern (I'm French. To us, letting individuals and insurance companies sort it out between themselves without government input isn't even on the table.). Considering how much money you (Americans as a whole) pour into it, you ought to be able to get much better than what you're getting.

You did say it "matters more" so I assume you mean that money matters more than the life of the poor. Now, certainly everyone would like to get their money's worth, whatever that truly means, but that seems to be separate issues. We can certainly look into trying to get the poor adequate health insurance and at the same time find a way to decrease costs to stop waste/overcharging for all.

[Vexx]

The US gets poor efficiency from the amount of money pumped into healthcare and a poor distribution of services... because of the large amount siphoned off into a small number of pockets that are neither part of the medical team nor the patients. It goes to the "casino house" as some term the for-profit insurance industry.
Health is a public concern as Anh says.. I'd even argue its a national security concern.

That's why its impossible to maintain most of these GOP candidates represent *anyone* other than their plutocrat overlords... the rest is just smoke and mirrors to fool the tools like the ones we saw in the audience on the CNN debate.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Well having physically harder jobs should not relate unless you believe the jobs are so much more physically stressful that they also decrease life expectancy then that certainly also can be an issue to be looked into.

Yeah, good luck with that.

By crappier food I assume you mean less nutritious. That certainly can be the case but everyone in America eats junk food and fast food a lot. Though I think the poorer you are it could certainly lead to a more unbalanced diet.

These issues might all contribute to the decreased life expectancy and thereby why we would have to look into ways to fix them.



I'm certain he used death sentence as a way of hammering home his point. I don't know if the use of it, even as a hyperbole, necessarily discredits any of his points about the disparity leading to lower quality of life, life expectancy and upwards social mobility in America.

I don't know if want you mean by "it is inevitable" as in the poor will always live worse lives, die earlier, and have little chance to advance so we should just get over that fact and move on. I'd like to think as a society we shouldn't be so cold blooded and act instead of shrugging it off to inevitability.

I don't know why you inserted that bit about social mobility, but yes, being rich generally means being better off in a lot of areas. That's kinda the point. I don't know how you'd set about to change that - force everyone to live in identical homes and eat identical food, regardless of income?

You did say it "matters more" so I assume you mean that money matters more than the life of the poor.

An unwarranted assumption. That's not what I was comparing.

What I saw in that video was a guy spending minutes explaining it was better to be rich than poor. Well, duh. So what?

The fact that the rich can afford to buy a ferrari (or, more relevantly, hire a personal trainer and a personal chef) while the poor can't is of little importance. The fact that the situation could be made better with a decent healthcare system (as exemplified in many, many countries, in a variety of ways) isn't.

There's no point in looking at the wealthy taking care of their health and saying you want to poor to be able to do the same. The rich just throw a boatload of cash at the problem. There just isn't enough money for the poor to do the same. It doesn't mean there aren't ways for the poor to have better health. It just means the situation of the rich isn't relevant.

Though, really, the rich will always have it better - they can do anything the poor can do, but they also have the "boatload of cash" option.

Now, certainly everyone would like to get their money's worth, whatever that truly means,

Decent healthcare for everyone, like in all the other rich countries?

but that seems to be separate issues. We can certainly look into trying to get the poor adequate health insurance and at the same time find a way to decrease costs to stop waste/overcharging for all.

... Yeah, I'm going to disagree on the "separate issues" bit.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The US gets poor efficiency from the amount of money pumped into healthcare and a poor distribution of services... because of the large amount siphoned off into a small number of pockets that are neither part of the medical team nor the patients. It goes to the "casino house" as some term the for-profit insurance industry.
Health is a public concern as Anh says.. I'd even argue its a national security concern.

That's why its impossible to maintain most of these GOP candidates represent *anyone* other than their plutocrat overlords... the rest is just smoke and mirrors to fool the tools like the ones we saw in the audience on the CNN debate.

Well I think that's a bit simplistic. I don't believe that they believe that but that they are actually serving the greater good. The question is are they really?

I think it all comes back to this personal responsibility they keep talking about. On the surface it seems a common sense ideal, that everyone should be responsible for their actions but in practical application it becomes much more sinister. It becomes a way to basically justifying when people die because of lack of health insurance and put the blame on them for not either be able to afford coverage or choosing not to get it for whatever reasoning.

Just awhile ago I was watching a story on Jon Paul and how he had a staff member who died of Pneumonia because he didn't have life insurance because of a preexisting condition that made it cost to much for him to afford. Instead of entertain the possibility a universal health insurance that could stop this from happening he was talking about how they raised 50k of the 400k for his medical bills that he gained after the condition had progressed to the point that it eventually killed him.

This type of personal responsibility will only lead to people not concerning themselves with the welfare of their fellow man until its too late then saying oh well.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I don't believe in providing welfare for education and unemployment benefits because it would dilute the value of education and make people lazier.

Firstly let's take a look at education welfare. If everyone gets a chance to go into university just by passing a set of lame and repetitive exams, it would seriously dilute the prestige of the degree. If it is going to be "welfared", then the degree itself would be entirely useless.

I wasn't speaking so much about university education, which I'd actually agree with you on that it may not be something that should be subsidised. I was speaking more about primary and secondary education. I think it's generally been shown that society has improved due to the improvements in literacy and math fostered by free primary education.

Education is not just a tool for teaching bullshit government-mandated "skills" to the population in whatever way the government wants, it is also a symbol of meritocracy where the smartest, brightest and/or the most creative should deserve. And hence the degree signifies the position of the smartest man, if everyone is the smartest man then who is the best?

"When everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody!" -Gilbert & Sullivan.

However I don't think College should be viewed as a means to stream people into categories, as a kind of pedigree. College is simply a means to give people a certain kind of education. I don't think it's an education that should be espoused as universally appropriate. I'm a smart guy, but I think I got almost nothing out of college, and probably should have done something different. I don't think College should be some kind of bare requirement to be a part of elite society either, it should simply be a requirement for certain professions (like medecine, engineering etc.). Does a journalist need a college education? However this is more of a discussion for the "Is college worth it?" thread.

Secondly, unemployment benefit isn't really a good thing - I would rather the government be able to provide ad hoc unfilled jobs on the go until the person is able to find another job because it would simply drain on the state funds and create a "crutch mentality" - causing the unemployed to size down to their situation and create a smaller comfort zone where he/she has no job at all.

An idle mind produces nothing. At least if the person works, he/she may think of something to improve the current situation he/she is in.

I wasn't speaking about long term unemployment benefit, but more about benefit for those who are "between" jobs. In the weeks to months that people are seeking work they should receive some form of benefit. I think it should be time limited though, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Further to that, I think the best benefit for the long term unemployed (>6 months) is actual work, and I would support the government stepping in to help people find work, or even provide work in times of recession (for example through public works).

30-35 unreasonable? I think anything beyond 50 hours without OT pay or anything unenjoyable should then be considered unreasonable. 30-35 is too short to be considered unfair. As of now I am holding onto a 6D/12h job paying $1300 per month, and I absolutely hate it - that is what I consider unreasonable. But that is one of the few over $1000 jobs I could find in an industry saturated with foreign workers and companies looking to cut their labour costs.

Reasonableness isn't the right word, I more thought that 30-35 is the optimal work level. I think less then that and people will feel unhappy over too much idleness, and there won't be enough work produced. And more then that and I think people feel unhappy about their work consuming their lives.

I think for people to have life satisfaction I think they need work, but they need just the right level, not too much, not too little. I think 30-35 hours a week is about that amount.

I think that society would benefit as a whole if people worked less hours, less burnout, more creativity, and lower unemployment.

Now obviously your job is quite awful, and is clearly unreasonable, but how much lower would be reasonable? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't your current extremely unreasonable conditions warp your perception to see what in other circumstances would be seen as unreasonable as reasonable? IE because you're working 70 hours a week, you see 50 hours a week as reasonable, when in fact it's still unreasonable, just less unreasonable.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I may not agree with him on most issues, but on this issue Senator Sanders and I are in agreement.

It is sad that this issue gets buried under useless political rhetoric.

Bernie Sanders speaks the truth. He fights the power!

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, good luck with that.

I see, its an issue you've already given up as an inevitability. I believe a lot of people would have said that women would be inevitability less smarter than men in the past and the sexes could never reach equality. Lucky people in the past weren't so quick to give up as you. While we not there by any means we've certainly made a lot of progress in the face of those who surrendered before the first shot was fired.

I don't know why you inserted that bit about social mobility, but yes, being rich generally means being better off in a lot of areas. That's kinda the point. I don't know how you'd set about to change that - force everyone to live in identical homes and eat identical food, regardless of income?

I included social mobility because of the fact that currently we are moving towards a society where more and more people are under the poverty line and have little chance to move up. They have to make much more tougher choices to survive between food and transportation to even get to work

The question is of course, how better off. I'm not saying we will ever have complete equality but where is the disparity. Does the fact of a person being rich entitle them to better healthcare by default. So if I'm rich I deserve to live over 6 years than the poor folks by default or are we going to look at the causes and figure how we can get everyone quality health insurance so we can all live longer. Maybe you just want to give up on this too and put it as an inevitability?

An unwarranted assumption. That's not what I was comparing.

What I saw in that video was a guy spending minutes explaining it was better to be rich than poor. Well, duh. So what?

We'll have to disagree that at the heart of your original argument that wasn't what you were professing but I'll move on from that.

I think he was trying to not say being rich is better than poor but highlight their plight and the need to do something to help them also with a lot of other points about who he feels is to blame and also how he feels they are taking away safety nets for the poor.

Now this might be a difference in philosophy. I subscribe to the belief that the society is judged by how its treats it least fortunate amongst them. Now you probably just subscribe to poor have it worse than the rich and that just how it was naturally meant to be. I can't find that a palatable position though.

There's no point in looking at the wealthy taking care of their health and saying you want to poor to be able to do the same. The rich just throw a boatload of cash at the problem. There just isn't enough money for the poor to do the same. It doesn't mean there aren't ways for the poor to have better health. It just means the situation of the rich isn't relevant.

The question being then does not having the money to throw at health care mean that you don't deserve comparable healthcare to the rich. Does having more money entitle you to better? I think your trying to say it does.

Though, really, the rich will always have it better - they can do anything the poor can do, but they also have the "boatload of cash" option.

Well then why don't we take away the boatload of cash option and just give universal healthcare and stop talking about how its so natural that the rich have it interns of life expectancy.

Decent healthcare for everyone, like in all the other rich countries?

I would at least try to aspire to it like many other countries instead of giving it up as an inevitable disconnect between the rich and poor that doesn't need addressing.

... Yeah, I'm going to disagree on the "separate issues" bit.

Well lets just do that then.

[Vexx]

This type of personal responsibility will only lead to people not concerning themselves with the welfare of their fellow man until its too late then saying oh well.

There's a fundamental delusion being peddled (ref: Ayn Rand sociopathy) that a "man is an island and can be self-sufficient" ... its a lie. No one exists without dipping from the resources of those around him, be it time, labor, the social contracts of co-existence, the water supply, working roads. It is simply a win-win when humans cooperate and share resources. even the feudal lords and warlords kind of understood this - in exchange for protecting their lands and the peasants on them, they got a cut of the produce. If they took too much, the system failed in a variety of catastrophic ways. When you get a paycheck, its because there's a network of written rules in place and a series of social contracts. You knew someone to get the job, you trained in an apprenticeship or school. You depend on everyone around you and they depend on you.

Public infrastructure is an organized way of sharing resources so the maximum number of citizens get a chance to flourish. There's an underlying theme from the GOP that they want to remove that environment, roll the clock back to the 1890s before the rise of the middle class.

Originally Posted by Anh

There's no point in looking at the wealthy taking care of their health and saying you want to poor to be able to do the same. The rich just throw a boatload of cash at the problem. There just isn't enough money for the poor to do the same. It doesn't mean there aren't ways for the poor to have better health. It just means the situation of the rich isn't relevant.

It costs far less to provide *preventive* care to the poor than our current system of only offering *disaster* care. The rest of the advanced tech world understands this. A huge fraction of our "healthcare costs" fall into a blackhole -> insurance industry profits and personal gains of the executives thereof.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

I see, its an issue you've already given up as an inevitability. I believe a lot of people would have said that women would be inevitability less smarter than men in the past and the sexes could never reach equality. Lucky people in the past weren't so quick to give up as you. While we not there by any means we've certainly made a lot of progress in the face of those who surrendered before the first shot was fired.

Not entirely a matter of inevitability, but...

Some jobs are worse than others (coal miner, deep sea diver...). Technological progress and societal change may make them safer, or make them disappear entirely, but there's precious little legislation can do past a certain point where they're as safe as they can be, but still worse than white collar jobs.

But that's not what prompted me to wish you luck. To give you a little context: that issue crops up once in a while here, under the name of "penibilité" (hardship? I'm not sure of the English translation). Well, in our case, it's a bit different, since it's about how early they can retire, rather than how to make it so coal miners don't have to breathe or something.

Anyway, despite the fact that the government runs our (universal) healthcare, and our retirement pensions, that we're all about government intervention, it's something that we've found hard to define, let alone debate. You, on the other hand, bungled your healthcare system like I wouldn't have thought possible. So, once again, good luck with that.

I included social mobility because of the fact that currently we are moving towards a society where more and more people are under the poverty line and have little chance to move up. They have to make much more tougher choices to survive between food and transportation to even get to work

The question is of course, how better off.

No, it's not. It's how good you can make it for everybody. How good the rich have it is a pointless concern.

I'm not saying we will ever have complete equality but where is the disparity. Does the fact of a person being rich entitle them to better healthcare by default. So if I'm rich I deserve to live over 6 years than the poor folks by default or are we going to look at the causes and figure how we can get everyone quality health insurance so we can all live longer. Maybe you just want to give up on this too and put it as an inevitability?

It's not a matter of "deserts" or "entitlement". You pour more money in your car, you get a better car. You pour more money in healthcare, you get better healthcare.

We'll have to disagree that at the heart of your original argument that wasn't what you were professing but I'll move on from that.

Yes, you like putting words in my mouth. I'm curious to know where you got the notion I opposed universal healthcare, though.

I think he was trying to not say being rich is better than poor but highlight their plight and the need to do something to help them also with a lot of other points about who he feels is to blame and also how he feels they are taking away safety nets for the poor.

Now this might be a difference in philosophy. I subscribe to the belief that the society is judged by how its treats it least fortunate amongst them. Now you probably just subscribe to poor have it worse than the rich and that just how it was naturally meant to be. I can't find that a palatable position though.

I think our philosophical differences are elsewhere. For example, you talk of the plight of the American poor, because you compare them to the American rich. But if you used other comparisons (to the 19th century American poor? To the Somalian poor?), you'd find they're drowning in riches. So, which is it? That's why I don't think much of such comparisons.

I agree that society should treat its least fortunate members decently. But I also accept we can't afford Ferraris and yachts for everyone. And see little point in banning them for the rich.

The question being then does not having the money to throw at health care mean that you don't deserve comparable healthcare to the rich. Does having more money entitle you to better? I think your trying to say it does.

Having? No. Spending? Yes.

Think a bit more globally. Let's say you guys get your act together about universal health care. Are you going to hold off until every country in the world, including third world countries, get the same level of care? Of course not. You're going to take your rich country money and use it to treat your rich country citizens, and you're not going to apologize about it. Why would you?

Well then why don't we take away the boatload of cash option and just give universal healthcare and stop talking about how its so natural that the rich have it interns of life expectancy.

I live in a country with universal healthcare. And guess what? The boatload of cash option still exists. It's less relevant - you can get treated even if you're poor. But if you're rich, you can do things like hire a personal nurse, or, haha, get admitted to a private clinic in the US. You guys, after all, are known to have the best in terms of medical care... as long as one can afford it.

I would at least try to aspire to it like many other countries instead of giving it up as an inevitable disconnect between the rich and poor that doesn't need addressing.

And I'm all for you guys getting a system comparable to one of what I'd like to call "civilized countries". But I'm telling you - the rich will still have it better. And in itself, it doesn't matter. I prefer to focus on what can be done, rather than some pipe dream of perfect equality which raises its own set of terrifying questions.

[Vexx]

I think ya'll are on the same page.. just some slightly different glossaries and whatnot.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

No, it's not. It's how good you can make it for everybody. How good the rich have it is a pointless concern.

The rich is of course used as a point of contrast. You can't judge a society unless you contrast the people inside. For example, you can't judge medieval Europe unless you look at both how the lords and the serfs led their lives and compare the two. You can't just say we're going to make it better for everyone and not first realize that it is disproportionally bad for certain groups before that. The first action should always be the help those most in need.

Making good for everyone sounds nice but is extremely impractical in solving any problem. It's like trying to treat a disease by treating the more healthy parts of the body the same as the non-healthy one. It's irrational.

It's not a matter of "deserts" or "entitlement". You pour more money in your car, you get a better car. You pour more money in healthcare, you get better healthcare.

I would disagree with our ability not to limit the effect money has on this especially in American where money is such a great factor. Trying to achieve this goal while probably not completely achievable is certainly laudable in my mind.

Yes, you like putting words in my mouth. I'm curious to know where you got the notion I opposed universal healthcare, though.

I didn't. That's putting words in my mouth. I was just pointing out that when you said it matter more that people are overpaying than people aren't getting as much health insurance etc. due to be poorer then you're putting the former money as more important than the latter's life. I don't care if you support universal health care or not.

I think our philosophical differences are elsewhere. For example, you talk of the plight of the American poor, because you compare them to the American rich. But if you used other comparisons (to the 19th century American poor? To the Somalian poor?), you'd find they're drowning in riches. So, which is it? That's why I don't think much of such comparisons.

A lot of those places are called third world countries for a reason and the fact that health care has improved since the 19th century is hardly an argument against our current health system and if it is fair. If we use your example we can just keep going back in time and saying we're better off than that previous generation so we should just stfu and stop complaining.

We should be able to compare American citizens to each other who fall under the same healthcare system. They are relevant to each and not relevant to past societies. You argument makes no sense and just tries to deflect the issue.

I agree that society should treat its least fortunate members decently. But I also accept we can't afford Ferraris and yachts for everyone. And see little point in banning them for the rich.

Not the issue unless you equate healthcare to a luxury equivalent to having a Ferrari.

And I'm all for you guys getting a system comparable to one of what I'd like to call "civilized countries". But I'm telling you - the rich will still have it better. And in itself, it doesn't matter. I prefer to focus on what can be done, rather than some pipe dream of perfect equality which raises its own set of terrifying questions.

Well in my experience having pipe dreams and working to achieve them is far better than see inequality and pretending that inequality is unavoidable. That certain people will have it better is probably true but unless we are working at making it fairing then nothing will change.