[nknighthb]

I already do help pay for the healthcare of the poor (as well as the not-so-poor over 65, and your father's VA care, by the way, as well as my grandfather's VA care). By any reasonable global standard, I am, in fact, rich. By American standards I am decidedly upper-middle-class. I make several times the median personal income in the United States. In fact, my 2012 taxes exceeded the US median personal income. I have excellent healthcare, a growing portfolio, and my only debt is a modest low-interest mortgage on an older but well-built house I bought last year and have already done substantial renovation on.

My taxes are too low. They should be increased. I regularly vote as such, as well as making campaign contributions to candidates and causes that would result in my taxes going up. I also make donations to charitable health care organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Doctors Without Borders.

Any more insulting questions?

[dnautics]

Without getting into the fact that, yes, worldwide I'm certainly not "poor"...

Don't you see how what you say is a problem? Most of the ways you listed where you are "helping" are involuntary and inefficient. When I go out and help, I'm actually putting food directly in the hands of the people who are hungry. I won't say the org. I work for is perfect, but there is a far closer to 1-1 yield on the fruits of my effort. Because it's personal, it also makes me feel good. I think I'm less inclined to think, "well, gee, there's some welfare queen living off of my dole". There's accountability. If the welfare system screws up, there's a chain of unelected bureaucrats that are only held accountable to narcissistic fools who are elected based on unrelated wedge issues like abortion. If my volunteer organization screws up, then the donors stop giving and find other places for their money to help (without sounding too capitalistic about it, there are indeed competing orgs that could fill its shoes on a dime).

You're trying to vote to make the burden on other people greater, which will create a bigger bureaucracy, which will in all likelihood be more inefficient. Why not, instead of taxing people more, work harder to create a society that just does more efficient things to help? It's hard, because getting people to be BETTER people is not easy. But it's way worth it.

Yeah, there are problems in our country, like a kleptocratic upper class, but you don't think there might be better solutions that actually address that problem than the bludgeoney "tax 'em more!!1" - which, ultimately is based in the ugly emotion of envy?

[nknighthb]

Why would you expect greater inefficiency when every piece of empirical evidence we have, including Medicare itself in the United States, shows the exact opposite?

Government is an instrument of society. I'm trying to use that societal instrument in a proven manner to solve societal problems that otherwise suffer a tragedy of the commons.

[dnautics]

The US system is terrible, for so many reasons, so using it as an argument that socialized medicine is a solution is kind of a strawman. How did we care for people 50 or 60 years ago, when medicine was LESS socialized than it is now, and arguably care and outcomes were more compassionate in spite of less technology?

How, exactly are you solving the tragedy of the commons by expanding on its status as a "commons"?

And "Government is an instrument of society". That's true, but a somewhat vacuous statement. It's a very special instrument of society; and it is worth thinking about whether or not its special status makes it the "appropriate instrument". Do we really want the organization that invades brown countries and spies wantonly on everyone to be managing our medical system?

Before you dismiss that - when you vote for president (who is where the buck stops in terms of accountability) do you take into account whether or not he bombs brown people or spies? Do you want that part of the decision process contaminating the decision vis a vis his or her ability to manage the healthcare part?

[nknighthb]

> How did we care for people 50 or 60 years ago

Well, in 1950, women were at least six times more likely to die in childbirth.

> arguably care and outcomes were more compassionate in spite of less technology

I've never heard anyone argue that.

> Do we really want the organization that invades brown countries and spies wantonly on everyone to be managing our medical system?

Our medical system is and will forever be managed by the same people who manage the government -- the people.

You need to stop foisting ills off on "the government" as if it is something distinct. We, the voting American populace, are responsible for its actions. If we wanted real change, there would be real change.

We obviously do not. We are a selfish, violent people. Thinking we will be any different just because the word "government" isn't involved is hopelessly naïve.

> Do you want that part of the decision process contaminating the decision vis a vis his or her ability to manage the healthcare part?

Presidents manage very little. Cabinet secretaries and heads of independent agencies who are confirmed by the Senate oversee civil servants who manage the day-to-day operation of virtually everything that happens in the United States government.

Besides, the only system under which no one has influence over something I don't want them to is a system in which I am an absolute monarch. Do you want that?

[dnautics]

Well, in 1950, women were at least six times more likely to die in childbirth.

You're cherry-picking data. 1950 wasn't a utopia. The military was spreading chlamydia and radioactive materials in black neighborhoods "just to see what would happen". But I think considering the level of social consciousness AND technology that existed at the time, things were in many ways better. More to the point, especially with regards to the discussion: If you went to the hospital, your bills were reasonable - you wouldn't go into debt, the quality of service (relative to what could be provided) was high. If you were poor, you would probably be treated pro bono without hesitation.

If your claim is that the technology to save lives really is that expensive, I think you're wrong. Even the oft-repeated mantra that it's rapacious insurance companies is a flawed narrative: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmu.html (there are rapacious companies in there but it's not insurance) and I would be deeply suspicious of whoever is selling that narrative.

"the government" as if it is something distinct

It is distinct. If you wrong me, I cannot imprison you in my basement. I cannot hire lackeys to invade your home and threaten you with guns and shoot your dog. There's a categorical difference.

>We, the voting American populace, are responsible for its actions.

No, we're not. If you "voted for the other guy", in what way are you responsible? For not trying hard enough? If you're opposed to the war, are you responsible because you didn't go far enough to stop it? How far would be enough? Saying we are is kind of jingoistic. Ultimately, we're citizens of the planet, and any given person has a finite capacity to change it for the better; and expecting responsibility for more is unreasonable.

>If we wanted real change, there would be real change.

That's true, but to get it we need to understand that government is NOT the solution to everything and think real hard about what it should and should not be a solution for.

>We are a selfish, violent people.

I don't see this at all. I think that perception is really a crazy media narrative caused by desperation from the disruption we're seeing in that industry, and partly from (mostly local) government interest groups seeding that impression to justify increased expenditures for specialized crimefighting units. Crime in the US is down over the last 20 years.

>Besides, the only system under which no one has influence over something I don't want them to is a system in which I am an absolute monarch. Do you want that?

I'm not an galtian individualist - I'm not suggesting that my ideal is one where no one has influence over me. My suggestion that we should make people BETTER is, quite the opposite - crafting a better society is, I think important, but to me, what the means to those ends are, is really worth thinking about.

[nknighthb]

> You're cherry-picking data.

No, I'm just remembering one piece of data off the top of my head.

> 1950 wasn't a utopia.

Definitely. Whether you could get access to reasonable (or even any) medical care depended on whether you were white. But one doctor has made a questionable decision about your father's care (by the way, you do know you can get second, even third opinions, even within a fully socialized system, right?), so you want to go back to segregated medicine.

> If you "voted for the other guy", in what way are you responsible?

"We" is society, not the individual. Society is responsible, and society is what you want to rely on, just without the "government" label attached. It's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.