is it a good ideal to bring back the draft?

[TheLonelySquire]

[All I ask is that each person be responsible for their own destiny.

So no draft, then.

Are you a socialist?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

[All I ask is that each person be responsible for their own destiny.

So no draft, then.

Are you a socialist?

I believe it is the obligation of a person to do two things simultaneously- serve themselves and serve humanity. My children will be raised with the understanding that there must be reciprocity. They must ensure always to serve themselves and serve the community that supports them. If one is allowed to take prominence over the other, that is not a positive development. Serving yourself at the expense of your people and community, or serving others at the expense of yourself, is to be avoided. If you have self-knowledge and self-understanding, as opposed to allowing others to dictate who you are and how you relate to the world, this will not be hard. You will know where the balance lies. You will know when one of these two concerns is being allowed to eclipse the other.

And there are many ways to serve humanity. We all do our part- or at least should- in our own way, based on who we are. Sometimes the majority don't see that what you're doing is serving, because they've been conditioned by their states to see service in certain prescriptive ways. They think collectively. Never let someone else dictate who you are- that is an important aspect of my personal belief system. We are all unique individuals, who should never allow ourselves to be subjugated to a group. At the same time, our individuality must be used to help the whole, to encourage the prosperity of the human people.

Co-operation, diversity from many voices and the recognition of each individual's worth and importance- this is the basis of strength and security. Deny the individual, and you deny the group. Because groups are made of individuals. Attack the concept of the unique individual and you attack the foundation of your group.

 

[Rii]

The state is an abstraction, society is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, it has no collective right to survive.

The second part of your sentence contradicts the first.

Not at all. The state is unimportant, only people are important, individuals with thoughts and hopes and dreams and fears that an abstraction like the state will never possess. One's right to life is not conditioned upon the approval of the majority. In sending certain subsets of its citizenry to their deaths, the state commits an injustice as grave as any it might perceive itself in opposition to.

Most individuals will survive the fall of the state, certainly most who don't stand in opposition to its fall will, barring some motive of the invaders to the contrary. Or did the United States commit genocide in its invasion of Iraq in 2003?

A society in which certain individuals are willing to sacrifice the lives of other individuals for any reason is not a society but a tyrannical mob. Individuals (and the institutions they serve) who would seek such dominion over others should be opposed, with words if possible, with force if necessary.

Of course, if you tried to get any of your like-minded friends to help you use force to prevent your country from using force to defend itself from a hostile power using force, they'd just stand by and watch you lose.

"You'd lose" is the last refuge of a man with no moral ground to stand upon.

Where'd you get this idea that I wouldn't join the military to defend my country? I'm not a pacifist, I believe that violence, whilst tragic, is occasionally necessary and justified at the level of both the individual and the state; just as my state can be wrong it can also be right. What I'm opposed to is a draft, and the abhorrent assumptions underlying arguments in its favour. JuanBolio was absolutely correct when he said that if a war is necessary then the state should be able to convince its citizens of that fact. If it can't then clearly that society isn't all it's cracked up to be.

In the case of a draftee, "he gave his life for his country" is more appropriately phrased as "we took his life for ourselves". But then I guess that kind of thinking would be frowned upon in the "land of the free" as it supposes that the individual was ever something other than an instrument of the state in the first place.

See, now the difference between us here is that you get agitated and upset and post snide remarks.

You're a master of passive aggression, TLS. You phrase your comments so as to elicit the responses that you get, which feeds your feelings of victimisation and superiority.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

The state is an abstraction, society is nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, it has no collective right to survive.

The second part of your sentence contradicts the first.

Not at all. The state is unimportant, only people are important, individuals with thoughts and hopes and dreams and fears that an abstraction like the state will never possess. One's right to life is not conditioned upon the approval of the majority. In sending certain subsets of its citizenry to their deaths, the state commits an injustice as grave as any it might perceive itself in opposition to.

Most individuals will survive the fall of the state, certainly most who don't stand in opposition to its fall will, barring some motive of the invaders to the contrary. Or did the United States commit genocide in its invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Of course, if you tried to get any of your like-minded friends to help you use force to prevent your country from using force to defend itself from a hostile power using force, they'd just stand by and watch you lose.

"You'd lose" is the last refuge of a man with no moral ground to stand upon.

Where'd you get this idea that I wouldn't join the military to defend my country? I'm not a pacifist, I believe that violence, whilst tragic, is occasionally necessary and justified at the level of both the individual and the state; just as my state can be wrong it can also be right. What I'm opposed to is a draft, and the abhorrent assumptions underlying arguments in its favour. JuanBolio was absolutely correct when he said that if a war is necessary then the state should be able to convince its citizens of that fact. If it can't then clearly that society isn't all it's cracked up to be.

In the case of a draftee, "he gave his life for his country" is more appropriately phrased as "we took his life for ourselves". But then I guess that kind of thinking would be frowned upon in the "land of the free" as it supposes that the individual was ever something other than an instrument of the state in the first place.

See, now the difference between us here is that you get agitated and upset and post snide remarks.

You're a master of passive aggression, TLS. You phrase your comments so as to elicit the responses that you get, which feeds your feelings of victimisation and superiority.

Call it what you will. His remarks were indeed snide. And I'm certainly not a victim.

 

[nevermore]

JuanBolio Allowing people to suffer and die because they lack insurance

--- Emergency rooms in America provide emergency and non-emergency treatment to anyone, if you prove you incapabily of paying it is Mister JuanBolio free of charge. Not free, the taxpayers actual pay.

No, emergency rooms that are not government-funded are only required to stabilize a patient. They are not required to provide "non-emergency" treatment, and they do not do so. My colleague's sister just quit her practice at a for-profit hospital because she couldn't morally accept the idea of turfing sick and injured people out as soon as they were stable. Do you honestly think that a poor person can go to an emergency room and get free chemotherapy? Or that a poor person who is injured can get free physical therapy? They cannot. In addition, the fact that the uninsured can only get treatment once their condition becomes emergent increases the costs to the tax payer dramatically over what it would have cost if it had been caught earlier.

Under EMTALA, no patient who arrives in a hospital with an emergency condition will be turned away or transferred unnecessarily. Anyone who shows up in a hospital emergency room will be screened to determine the severity of his or her condition. If the condition is deemed an emergency, the hospital is obligated to stabilize the patient. The hospital can transfer patients only when it lacks the ability to stabilize the patient beyond a certain limit; a transfer to a charity hospital merely to avoid treating the patient is a violation.

The hospital does have the right to inquire whether the patient can pay. It is a violation, however, if EXAMINATION or treatment is delayed while the hospital asks the question. The hospital is not permitted to base its decision to treat a patient on whether there is an expectation of payment.

The hospital has no obligation to the patient if an emergency condition does not exist.

Link.

Also, while they have to stabilize the patient, the treatment is not free. The patient is billed, sued and eventually, when they cannot pay the tens of thousands of dollars, the debt is defaulted and the government pays it. The person then has to carry the bad debt on their record.

Pingfah Firsty that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment on his opinion of those who want UHC

--- I used cancer as one example of the fact that medical treatment in America without UHC is superior to countries with UHC. And again emergency rooms provide ALL type and levels of care for free if you can show you can not pay, to EVERYONE.

And on that note, the survival rates for cancer in the US are not comparable to those in UHC countries because there is a huge pool of people who are never diagnosed with cancer due to a lack of preventive care and screening availability.

During the debate on natioal health in America you will offen hear the term "single payer plan". The single payer in this plan is the government only, under this plan private insurance will be phased out of exsistance in America. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a big proponent of a government only health plan.

Which is not included in any of the bill up for debate, so your deflection is irrelevant.

JuanBolio Ensuring that everyone can afford medical care if and when they need it is not a "free ride", its human decency.

--- Then let us procede down the simple route of making slight, but important changes to the exsisting working system. These changes will lower costs and increase availability.

Which is what IS in the bills up for debate. Try actually reading them.

Pingfah and JuanBolio from what you have told me in these posts, what is being propose here, is different than you have there, with the exception of being called UHC.

JuanBolio is from Michigan, so he has the same shitty healthcare "system" you and I do. And no one is calling anything being proposed here "UHC" except the chicken littles on the Right.

 

[Pingfah]

--- I used cancer as one example of the fact that medical treatment in America without UHC is superior to countries with UHC. And again emergency rooms provide ALL type and levels of care for free if you can show you can not pay, to EVERYONE.

And on that note, the survival rates for cancer in the US are not comparable to those in UHC countries because there is a huge pool of people who are never diagnosed with cancer due to a lack of preventive care and screening availability.

The fact that there are 49 countries with higher life expectancies than the USA, including the UK, and every one of them has UHC would seem to bear that out.

Here it is, right from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Any clue as to why this might be the case T'Girl, considering you were just presenting Cancer survival rates as an important indicator, wouldn't you say that overall life expectancy is a rather better indicator of whether a health care system is functioning well?

 

[Leroy]

I am well aware that ALL people face financial difficulties in life, myself included. I grew up in a housing project. But at some point we all must be responsible for our own destiny. Whether we succeed or fail is up to the individual. A person does not have the RIGHT to succeed, nor should it be government's role to grant such a right.

Excellent point except for the fact that getting sick and going bankrupt as a result isn't a choice.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I am well aware that ALL people face financial difficulties in life, myself included. I grew up in a housing project. But at some point we all must be responsible for our own destiny. Whether we succeed or fail is up to the individual. A person does not have the RIGHT to succeed, nor should it be government's role to grant such a right.

Excellent point except for the fact that getting sick and going bankrupt as a result isn't a choice.

That's why we need reform to make costs more reasonable while maintaining the best medical care in the world. Affordable access. Not government granted handouts for your entire life that the rest of us pay for.

 

[T'Girl]

DerangedNasat "Affordable" and "available" depends on the individual and their unique circumstances. It is relative. So where you say it should be "affordable" and "available", by whose measure? Surely, to be affordable and available to all, there is only one price we can have for it: Free.

---Even you will concede it isn't actual free, having someone else pay isn't free, at best it free to you.

Rii Not at all. The state is unimportant, only people are important, individuals with thoughts and hopes and dreams and fears that an abstraction like the state will never possess.

--- The concept of the state may be an abstract, but actual nation/states do have a physical exsistance and are composed of your individuals. It's people who build the state.

Rii Where'd you get this idea that I wouldn't join the military to defend my country?

--- Probably from reading your posts.

Flamingliuberal No, emergency rooms that are not government-funded are only required to stabilize a patient.

--- you got me, I was indeed referring to public hospitals, who by federal law will treat the poor who have no money.

Flamingliberal Also, while they have to stabilize the patient, the treatment is not free. The patient is billed, sued and eventually, when they cannot pay the tens of thousands of dollars, the debt is defaulted and the government pays it. The person then has to carry the bad debt on their record.

--- Correction the tax payers pay the bill. Their record will show they reneged on a debt, but the statement of some here that the poor go untreated and somehow die in the streets is a falsehood.

Flamingliberal And on that note, the survival rates for cancer in the US are not comparable to those in UHC countries because there is a huge pool of people who are never diagnosed with cancer due to a lack of preventive care and screening availability.

--- Just to be clear sir, were you referring to a pool of people in the US or europe?

Cancer survival rates reflect people who are diagnosed, treated and survive . Not people who were never diagnosed.

Flamingliberal Which is not included in any of the bill up for debate, so your deflection is irrelevant.

--- The democractic leadership in both houses of congress continue to include and push "single payer" in many of the multiple versions of the bill still working their way through congressional committees.

Pingfah The fact that there are 49 countries with higher life expectancies than the USA, including the UK, and every one of them has UHC would seem to bear that out.

--- The life expectance in the US is where it is because of violence not health care. A Macanese does live six and a half years longer than a American

 

[Pingfah]

The fact that there are 49 countries with higher life expectancies than the USA, including the UK, and every one of them has UHC would seem to bear that out.

--- The life expectance in the US is where it is because of violence not health care. A Macanese does live six and a half years longer than a American

Actually, of the 2.5 million deaths a year in the USA, murder at around 15,000 is barely a blip.

The only way you can achieve a significantly raised life expectancy rate for the USA is if you remove all murders, accidents and suicides from the death rate, whilst ignoring the role that healthcare services provide in preventing deaths after accidents and murder/suicide attempts.

 

[nevermore]

--- Correction the tax payers pay the bill. Their record will show they reneged on a debt, but the statement of some here that the poor go untreated and somehow die in the streets is a falsehood.

No, it's not. The only treatment the uninsured and unable to pay are entitled to is EMERGENCY care. They go untreated until it becomes an emergency, at best, which means they die more because they aren't treated in time.

And as a tax payer, I am happy to have some of my tax money go to provide equal health care coverage for all.

--- Just to be clear sir, were you referring to a pool of people in the US or europe?

You need at least two pools for a comparative analysis.

Cancer survival rates reflect people who are diagnosed, treated and survive . Not people who were never diagnosed.

Yes, that's the point. The stats are not comparable. More survive in the US because mostly those who have good, preventive health care coverage are diagnosed and treated. The poor, who, live less healthy lifestyles in the first place, are not diagnosed or treated, and therefore are not counted in the statistics. You cannot compare a general pool (UHC countries) to a self-selected pool (US).

Flamingliberal Which is not included in any of the bill up for debate, so your deflection is irrelevant.

--- The democractic leadership in both houses of congress continue to include and push "single payer" in many of the multiple versions of the bill still working their way through congressional committees.

I assert that this is not true and you are using this claim as a distraction from the fact that you can't cite anything specific in the bills themselves to scare people with. Please cite and highlight your source on the inclusion of single-payer health care. Please DO NOT cite bills introduced in other Congresses as they are not relevant to this discussion (this is the 111th Congress, FYI).

Please highlight anywhere in any of the bills that have come out of committee where a single-payer NHS-style system is proposed.

I'll even help out by providing the links:
HR 3200
S.4 "HELP Bill"
Baucus Bill (aka Finance Committee Bill)

The life expectance in the US is where it is because of violence not health care.

If you want to assert something like that, you have to cite your sources. Otherwise, it seems you may just be making shit up to support your position.

 

[T'Girl]

--- Correction the tax payers pay the bill. Their record will show they reneged on a debt, but the statement of some here that the poor go untreated and somehow die in the streets is a falsehood.

No, it's not. The only treatment the uninsured and unable to pay are entitled to is EMERGENCY care. They go untreated until it becomes an emergency, at best, which means they die more because they aren't treated in time.

--- NO sir. they go un-treated until they arrive in a emergency room. Despite the name 'emergency' they will treat non-emergency, non-life treating problems. Yes I'm again referring to public medical centers. Yes there is a priority first system. If you are injured or ill, you will be seen by a doctor. I've been to emergency rooms and have had nurses tell me this, and they're the ones who run the place.

And as a tax payer, I am happy to have some of my tax money go to provide equal health care coverage for all.

--- You have the option of donating your own money to a charity as I do (no not much) and , while I've never done it, I understand you can also give extra money to the government above you taxes.

Yes, that's the point. The stats are not comparable. More survive in the US because mostly those who have good, preventive health care coverage are diagnosed and treated. The poor, who, live less healthy lifestyles in the first place, are not diagnosed or treated, and therefore are not counted in the statistics. You cannot compare a general pool (UHC countries) to a self-selected pool (US).

- Yes you can, regardless of the number of people diagnosed, the surviver statistics is based on the total number of patents DIAGNOSED compared to the number who live through treatment. American patents have a higher survival rate because our system detects cancer sooner than europe's. We start treatment sooner than they do. The statistic isn't based on the number of people or the percentage of the population diagnosed. It's based on survival after treatment.


T'Girl

 

[nevermore]

--- Correction the tax payers pay the bill. Their record will show they reneged on a debt, but the statement of some here that the poor go untreated and somehow die in the streets is a falsehood.

No, it's not. The only treatment the uninsured and unable to pay are entitled to is EMERGENCY care. They go untreated until it becomes an emergency, at best, which means they die more because they aren't treated in time.

--- NO sir. they go un-treated until they arrive in a emergency room. Despite the name 'emergency' they will treat non-emergency, non-life treating problems. Yes I'm again referring to public medical centers. Yes there is a priority first system. If you are injured or ill, you will be seen by a doctor. I've been to emergency rooms and have had nurses tell me this, and they're the ones who run the place.

"Someone told me once" is not a valid argument. Also, yes, they have to be treated, i.e. stabilized. That does not extend to continued care, rehabilitation or intervention treatment for continuing conditions. People die, lose productivity and suffer because of that. Also, they are financially ruined by the treatment that they do receive, regardless of who eventually pays the MUCH HIGHER costs associated with only treating things when they become serious.

And as a tax payer, I am happy to have some of my tax money go to provide equal health care coverage for all.

--- You have the option of donating your own money to a charity as I do (no not much) and , while I've never done it, I understand you can also give extra money to the government above you taxes.

Philanthropy, both in the form of grants and individual contributions, accounts for 5% of nonprofit health care providers' funding. That's not going to change significantly, so that argument is a red-herring, but good work hitting all the talking points. As far as "voluntarily giving extra to taxes", great, but there's no program in place to send that to. That's kind of the point.

Yes, that's the point. The stats are not comparable. More survive in the US because mostly those who have good, preventive health care coverage are diagnosed and treated. The poor, who, live less healthy lifestyles in the first place, are not diagnosed or treated, and therefore are not counted in the statistics. You cannot compare a general pool (UHC countries) to a self-selected pool (US).

- Yes you can, regardless of the number of people diagnosed, the surviver statistics is based on the total number of patents DIAGNOSED compared to the number who live through treatment. American patents have a higher survival rate because our system detects cancer sooner than europe's. We start treatment sooner than they do. The statistic isn't based on the number of people or the percentage of the population diagnosed. It's based on survival after treatment.

I get it. You don't understand how comparative statistical analysis works. You need comparable pools to compare. The pool of people who actually get diagnosed with cancer in the US is significantly different demographically and socio-economically than the pool of people who get diagnosed in UHC countries, ergo, they have more options available to them for treatment and general health maintenance.

Anyhoo, this has been fun, but I take it from the fact that you just skipped them, that you can't honor my requests that you back up any of your assertions with actual facts. I'm assuming you can't back up any of the bolded assertions above with facts either, which leads me to the conclusion that its not worth discussing anything more.

 

[Kira Nerys]

No men and women should seve by choice,not by force.