[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.