You, like Cass, still cannot see the difference between principles and systems... A bad system doesn't mean bad principles...neverfail wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:37 pmOnce again Ellen there is nothing I want to argue against in your above post except for one tiny detail that nevertheless has big implications: your use of the term socialised healthcare.EllenS wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:23 amDagbay is correct. The American lifestyle is more responsible for illness and early death than any default in the healthcare system, although the HC system needs repair too.
I always supported nationalized healthcare because the private system in America makes no sense, creates a colossal waste of expenditure on unnecessary bureaucracy, and has proven not to be as effective as socialized healthcare in other countries. But part of the reason why the statistics of American healthcare are so bad is because of the lifestyle choices of substantial chunks of the population.
Self-inflicted harm cannot be cured by anything the government does.
For this, the US needs a cultural reformation. There doesn't appear to be any one offering to lead this reformation.
Do you really believe that in the dozens of countries abroad that have adopted, wholly or partly, national health cover policies were guided to do so by some urge to further a socialist agenda? The thin end of the wedge to open the path for a Soviet Union scenario where all productive and distributive assets are state owned? Well, over the years that is the impression that quite a few Americans have given me that they believe.
Though I do not believe that you consciously intended to do so Ellen: by tagging national healthcare as socialised you are affirming a widespread American conceptional error therefore making it that much harder for the US to ever acheive a sensible healthcare outcome.
(The fact that a lot of Americans may make bad lifestyle choices is no excuse for not having better healthcare policy.)
Discussion of current events
I can assure you that I readily distinguish between sound guiding "principles" and utopian fantasy.
My reply was in any case directed to Ellen. It rebuked the widespread American habit of stigmatising any form of benign government intervention as "socialism" - a dirty word in their jargon. Do you consider that habit to be a 'sound guiding principle" for the governance of a nation? Ellen seems to make that distinction just as I do.