"The economics of the future are somewhat different..."

Surely a enlightened population would place a high value on individual citizens being fully enpowered to make their own choices in the area of health care.

 

Surely, you have no idea how universal healthcare works.

People do have choices as to where and what kind of treatment they receive. As opposed to Ferenginar, where your choice of services is limited by how much gold pressed latinum you happen to have.

 

One of the conceits of the Star Trek "universe" is that humans and many other species are "better" and are able to exhibit altruism, cooperation, and other attitudes and actions that are NOT present in human society of our day. Therefore better people would naturally create better government. So while I can understand why people who support libertarian causes would find it distasteful that a powerful central government would exist in the future, especially with all the various issues with powerful governments in our time, we have to remember that in the Star Trek universe both people AND governments work together for the common good.

 

I never claimed that the Federation exiles people or that it's citizens are intellectual clones. A free society allows its members to dissent and also allows them to leave if they cannot convince others to adopt their policies and cannot accept how things are run. The freedom to leave one's country is recognized as a human right in our own time.

So while yes, I agree, 24th century Earth is probably a "multi-cultural multi-concept society," it is so within the bounds established by the shows/movies. Our discussion is about how Earth society is portrayed in the fictional world we call Star Trek. And that protrayal, despite some contradictory details, is that humans have a very cooperative, peaceful, non-greedy society.

How is universal health care taking choices away from people?

 

You have to understand, "free choice" in health care from a capitalist perspective does not mean, "the ability of patients to make the best choices for their own medical care." It means, "the ability of businesses to profit off of human suffering."

 

If there is one thing that I can say without conviction about the depiction of the Federation, it's that unfortunately, it will turn a blind eye to suffering so long as it has an excuse.

How many times have we seen it happen on the show?

More than I'd like to count.

 

In fairness to the Federation, that's true of all human societies. Consider the slave-like conditions under which electronics companies force their employees to work to make components for computers, like Foxxcon. Or the sweatshops in which most Americans' clothes are made.

The Federation turns a blind eye to suffering far too often -- but it actually does a much better job of not doing that than most modern societies in real life.

 

I agree, Sci... however...

Humans in the future are supposed to be better than we are, in all our primitive-ness. They've "evolved" beyond us, remember?

 

I live in a country with Universal Health Care, and I still have the choice should I wish to take out Private Medical Insurance.

So what is wrong with Universal Health Care?

Sure today Universal Health Care such as the system used in the UK is not without it's problems , but the same is also true of the more Private Care used in places like the US. The former however does not depend on your ability to pay.

 

Yea, that's what he just said. That the Federation is better at it than we currently are.

 

ARE they?

No, seriously. Think for a moment about this.

Right now, our societies are having to deal with 1: Climate/Planet destruction issues, 2: Food production and distribution issues, 3: Overpopulation issues, all the while we don't have anything close to transporters, replicators or any of the advanced technology in the Trek Universe.

And yet in Trek we are STILL seeing genocide, starvation, mass war (just HOW many species have we gone to war with), racism/speciesm), avarice and greed on a massive scale. And I'm not just talking about the alien species here- I've got examples from multiple Federation humans in the show.

You say the Federation is better at it than us- I'm not so sure right now.

 

Here`s my take on this:

The United Earth Republic has a socialist economy in which things are made by cooperatives instead of corporations, and,
if you work, you get points which go towards the buying of things (recall the 'transporter credits' that a young Benjamen
Sisko used up beaming back and forth between San Francisco and New Orleans because he was homesick-that`s what I`m talking about.) Replicators on Earth and Earth colonies can be used a lot, but only up to a point; you probably have to work to earn more credits to use them (beyond basic needs like food and clothing for which a replicator would obviously be used.)

Starfleet is different since all that a Starfleet ship has to do is 'fill 'er up' at a particle cloud or nebula (`There`s coffee in that nebula`, as Janeway once said) but even a starship and starbase probably has limits on how much a replicator can be used (in emergencies, they`d be diverted to essentials like food, clothing, medicines, devices, and equipment, as happened in part one of `Year of Hell`) and maybe Starfleet has a points (credits) system, too.

So Earth and the rest of the Federation isn`t completely free of `money` after all.

 

On this I would agree, and I would add that these same "evolved" better people would require far less government than we have today, they would be in a much better position (in a educated, material and information sense) to handle the majority of their own affairs.

They wouldn't (for example) be in need of government provided schools, parents would fully capable of selecting a educational curriculum for their own children and locating a educational institution to provide this, or simply educate their children in the home - we see this with Jake on DS9, he at one point is being home schooled. So less (therefor better) government.

It's difficult to imagine any 23rd century government on Earth still providing a post office (distant colonies might be a different story), so less (therefor better) government.

Police and courts would still be needed, but because a enlightened population would be capable of personal responsibility and self-control, police forces and court systems will be smaller in size than today. So less (therefor better) government.

They will have a government, a better government.

I've had private medical insurance since I was twenty, but I choose to buy insurance of my own free will, not because of a government requirement backed by legal penalties.

While not what I would do, if a individual decided not to have medical insurance that would be their choice.

I just get the impression that you and I would disagree on what "non-greedy society," means. Simply making a honest days living and a nice profit isn't a form of greed, and that goes for medical practitioners and the businesses they work for too.

 

This is getting a little bit beyond just economics but go ahead, describe your examples. I am interested to hear your argument.

 

I think economics is at the very heart of this. Earth woes at this point in time almost inevitably are a result of economic imbalance- lack of finances, lack of resources, the imbalance of such end up creating conflict. War is inevitably the result of such a situation, and yet even with the global conflicts we are facing, the planet still manages to maintain somewhat of a semblance of rationality. You might mention religion- but bear in mind that the current "religious" conflict on our planet is actually a residual of the nonreligious capitalist vs. communist proxy wars fought in prior decades.

The Federation, on the other hand, seems to be constantly getting into wars with every single other power. In the TOS/TNG era alone (not counting the Dominion wars) we've gotten into long, drawn out conflicts with, at the very least, the Romulans, the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Sheliak, the Tholians- we're talking wars with some of the most important powers extant in the quadrant. While doing it we've ignored starvation, chaos, rape gangs and violence on our own human colonies, we allowed a Starfleet officer to intentionally poison an entire planet's atmosphere with literally no repercussions. We've had at least one attempt by Federation leadership at intentional genocide of an entire sentient species.

I would like to close by quoting Quark, one of the most intelligent, realistic individuals I am aware of in Star Trek-
"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes."

 

Universal Health Care to many would be more akin to something like the NHS (UK) rather than the PPACA (US).

 

This would go towards what I was referring to in term of the Federation being capable of making pragmatic decisions in their own best interests. The decision of the Federation Council to withhold the cure for the sickness that the Founders were infected with would be a example of a pragmatic (and imho a correct) decision.

And as a adult your inclusion is a matter of choice, or is your inclusion out of your hands?

 

I understand now! You mean the way police officers and firefighters work, right?

 

^ They would be examples yes.

In Seattle, police recruits make $26 per hour, once they become sworn police officers it jumps to $33 per hour, after four and a half years it's $43 per hour. The starting salary for a fire recruit is $65,000 per year (39,000 British pounds). Add lot's of benefits on top of that (plus firefighters have groupies).

These people work hard and are paid accordingly, there's nothing wrong or greedy with them making money.

It's the same story in other cities and with private contract police agencies, private fire departments, and numerous security firms across the country. Their jobs can be risky, no one reasonably expects them to work for free. In a hypothetical future, how would we get people to consistently show up for a dangerous job, when the guy up the street goes to the beach everyday for the same money?

In America even volunteer firefighters are compensated during the time they are responding to an emergency scene.

 

Yes, the way fire fighters and cops list their rates at their stations and only protect those who can afford to pay them directly...

There's a reason that governments fund some services. Because they believe that the health of its individuals is a public good that must be maintained. Just the way they believe that the cost of a justice system to protect property rights is best left in the public sphere and don't just leave it to private individuals to decide matters of legal consequence.

Out of curiosity, have you ever lived in a country with socialized health care? You seem to know a lot about what's wrong with it.