Libertarians

[TCBF]

Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?

- B.S. :  In the USA, your employer funds your healthcare.  If your poor, you get Medicare. This "1/3" is pure statist propaganda.

 

[edgar]

I haven't taken much of what FrenchAffair has said in this thread with less that a sea full of salt, but this is one that to my mind is close to reality.  Corporations around the world have, as far back as they have existed, tried to make profits at any cost.  That cost is often paid for in lives.  That is not to say that all companies do this, or that all countries allow it to happen, either within their borders, or without.

Below are a few examples, some that make a mortar seem humane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_Mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars       (specifically the East India Trading Co.)

Obviously there are many more examples out there, and I hope that just as obviously there are examples of corporations working to make money while looking after the lives of their stakeholders.

The idea of a corporation as a person under the US 14th amendment has certainly not helped corporations stay honourable, bu that might be best left to a different thread.

Let's nail down the disagreement here. FrenchAffair claims that shitty labour relations among WalMart suppliers is morally equivalent to Taliban violations of every human right. You support the claim, stating that there is a moral equivalence between the negligence and evasion of responsibility of modern corporations, and the warlike nature of the imperial age, with the terrorism of the Taliban.

This is not close to reality. It's just plain false. Don't make me get all Boolean on your ass. It wasn't the lack of a safety culture that caused those school children to die. Union Carbide is now owned by Dow (boycott accordingly), and if the compensations and punishments were inadequate, it is because democratic governments in India and the US failed to protect the Indian people (vote accordingly). Enron was a ripoff, not a mass murder. If you hope to recruit me for your Walmart hatefest by tales of atrocities, you need to do better than this. Consider tales of Walmart managers throwing babies out so they can sell the incubators.

I've noticed that brands available at Walmart are also available at Canadian Tire, the Bay etc, only not quite as cheaply. Are the Chinese factory workers oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt? Walmart has better management and logistics, and as a result your material quality of life is improved.

On a related note, farming in Saskatchewan has killed 330 people since 1983, including 62 children. You obviously need to stop eating bread and drinking beer else you are complicit in this murderous corporate rampage.

The reason corporations have limited liability is so a businessman doesn't lose his house and go to debtors prison leaving his children destitute when his business fails, as he did in Adam Smith's day. If this loophole is abused, vote accordingly.

By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle. STFU.

 

[FrenchAffair]

- B.S. :  In the USA, your employer funds your healthcare.  If your poor, you get Medicare. This "1/3" is pure statist propaganda.

Only certain companies provide health care for their workers. For example walmart, they only provide limited (Very limited) health care for 46% of their workers. That means over 775,000 individuals who work for Wal-Mart alone have no health care.

Then to add insult to injury, for the ones who are given health care pay 7 to 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, for family coverage it becomes 20-40% of their income to cover premiums and deductibles.

And of course, you still have to pay out of pocket for prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles.

In 2005 18% of companies in the US did not provide any health insurance.

 

[FrenchAffair]

you need to do better than this. Consider tales of Walmart managers throwing babies out so they can sell the incubators.

There is no excuse for murder, it is morally reprehensible.

Just as the enslavement of the working poor both here and around the world is morally reprehensible. 

Hundreds of thousands of children die each year as result of cooperate greed.

By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle.

How do you figure that?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of health care.

The beef about health care seems to centre on whether routine care should be covered by insurance.  The common sense answer would be "No" except for the fact that even routine health care can be costly for people on very low incomes.  Otherwise, paying your routine care costs would be as uncontroversial as paying your routine housing and transportation costs.  In the process of paying for health care, people would become educated shoppers.  As things stand, medical care is not much different than legal assistance: to the layman it's a black art managed by the guild keepers, and most people have no real clue whether they need what they're buying or whether it's worth what they're paying.

 

[a_majoor]

In 2005 18% of companies in the US did not provide any health insurance.

So what does that say about the 82% that do?

 

[KwaiLo]

Let's nail down the disagreement here. FrenchAffair claims that shitty labour relations among WalMart suppliers is morally equivalent to Taliban violations of every human right. You support the claim, stating that there is a moral equivalence between the negligence and evasion of responsibility of modern corporations, and the warlike nature of the imperial age, with the terrorism of the Taliban.

I don't support any claim that there is an equivalence between corporate manslaughter and terrorism.  I wanted to point out, and I think that I managed to do so, that corporations have killed.

, and if the compensations and punishments were inadequate, it is because democratic governments in India and the US failed to protect the Indian people (vote accordingly).

I am not an American, or an Indian, so I cannot 'vote accordingly'.  There are things that are legal in various places around the world, that aren't legal in Canada.  I am not going to ignore them when they happen, even though I personally may not be able to do anything about them, either with my ballot, or through force or arms.

I've noticed that brands available at Walmart are also available at Canadian Tire, the Bay etc, only not quite as cheaply. Are the Chinese factory workers oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt? Walmart has better management and logistics, and as a result your material quality of life is improved.

I am not sure that this one was directed to me, but of course Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc workers are not 'oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt?'  Walmart may well have better management and logistics, they also pay less than Canadian Tire and The Bay.  There are buying power issues, political leverage issues, environmental, discrimination.  My material quality of life isn't affected by Walmart, not in a large way.  Though it isn't always possible, I try to buy Cambridge first, then Ontario, then Canada, then American, then European, then rotw.

On a related note, farming in Saskatchewan has killed 330 people since 1983, including 62 children. You obviously need to stop eating bread and drinking beer else you are complicit in this murderous corporate rampage.

Here is what the Government of Saskatchewan is trying to do to help prevent the unnecessary deaths.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/index.htm
One thing to note from those 330 deaths however, is that most of them appear to have happened on family run farms.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/fatalities.htm

The reason corporations have limited liability is so a businessman doesn't lose his house and go to debtors prison leaving his children destitute when his business fails, as he did in Adam Smith's day. If this loophole is abused, vote accordingly.

I agree that this is one of the reasons that corporations have limited liability, stating that it is 'The reason' is far too black and white.  Corporations have evolved a great deal over the past 250 years, and a good number of the laws written by all countries are to promote, limit and govern their actions.

Once again though, I will say that I cannot 'vote accordingly' in most of these cases, as I live in Canada.  Thankfully we have worked through most of the problems that countries around the world are facing.

By equating Western corporate negligence with terrorist acts, you offer moral support to actual terrorists, and effectively recruit them to your anticorporate struggle. STFU.

Again, I don't believe that corporations are close to the same level as terrorists.  I don't see anything in the post that you quoted that would lead you to believe this.  I do believe that if a decision is made to commit acts outside your borders where there would be criminal or civil punishments were you to do the same at home, you are a criminal.  Of course it is left to the courts to decide this, and I hope that you would agree most courts around the world are not to Canadian standards.

I offer no support to terrorists, that I am aware of at least.  Perhaps some of the goods that I buy legally are funding them? 

I am not anti-corporate at all, I just don't believe that there should be a lesser standard for a corporation that for a person, it should be a higher one.

And please don't tell me to STFU, it isn't polite.  Even in disagreement, this thread has been civil with that exception.

 

[FrenchAffair]

So what does that say about the 82% that do?

82% provide some form. That could be they only provide it to their upper management, they provide limited coverage that costs too much for the average worker to afford, they provide policies (like WalMart) in which employees have to pay upwards of 20% of their yearly income just to cover premiums and deductibles.

All private health care does it give the small percentage of people at the top end of the income spectrum access to better and faster service, and costs the average citizens more money, giving them lower quality care.

 

[Donut]

All private health care does it give the small percentage of people at the top end of the income spectrum access to better and faster service, and costs the average citizens more money, giving them lower quality care.

It might also allow health care proffesionals to bill what they feel their time is worth, in a competitive and increasingly efficient manner, as opposed to having wages and schedules dictated to them by a beaurocracy that consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the health care budget. 

PMT

 

[Reccesoldier]

Recce, how then do you explain the tens of millions (close to 1/3) of the American population who do not have health insurance. If what you were saying is true why was there a necessity for medicare? Why does the American government spend more per person on health care then Canada does?

As has already been pointed out a good deal of that 1/3rd do have some form of health care and as for the rest how many of them choose not to play? 

I mean, by my own reckoning, a healthy young man or woman who does not engage in dangerous past times, does nothing more dangerous in the average work day than rock back in and balance in his/her chair, for these people you could reasonably expect a number of them to NOT pay because THEY don't want to. 

Is it responsible?  Who is to say, my mom wouldn't think so but I know when I was living in Red Deer after graduation I wouldn't have paid for healthcare, not necessarily because I couldn't but because I was young and "It will never happen to me" was my mantra. 

 

[edgar]

Lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of health care.

The beef about health care seems to centre on whether routine care should be covered by insurance...

That's a good point. Proactive or preventive care is important too and that's what they don't get. Ideally we all have a family doctor who becomes an expert on us as individuals. I don't have one either. We libertarians must fall back on the argument that the average lifespan of Americans continues to increase. I wonder how health care works in Japan? Do they have public health care or is it just all the fish that keeps them healthy?

The Medical Association is a union, self interested as the Steelworkers. They are the worst people to regulate health care, except for all those other people who know nothing about medicine. Wanna buy some Ephedra? It's natural!

 

[edgar]

There is no excuse for murder, it is morally reprehensible.

Just as the enslavement of the working poor both here and around the world is morally reprehensible. 

Hundreds of thousands of children die each year as result of cooperate greed.

How do you figure that?

You tell me that Walmart kills people. You tell me that the working poor are slaves. I don't think anything you read here will change your opinion. Americans can get busted for smoking Cuban cigars in BC. I don't think they will get away with murder. If you have evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Walmart, such as murder or enslavement, talk to the man: http://www.co.benton.ar.us/Sheriff/index.html

 

[edgar]

How do you figure that?

If the behavior of Walmart and the Taliban are morally equivalent, then
A. Walmart is murderous; or
B. Taliban are OK guys.

I've put you in the same basket as the people who said bringing down the twin towers was a reasonable thing to do in light of the rapacious behavior of the corporations headquartered within. The Taliban are then the poster boys for your struggle. If i misunderstood your position, sorry bout that. If you care to clarify your opinion, that's what we are here for. If I fail to reply however, it's not because you won the argument, it's because I realize it is a waste of time.

 

[edgar]

I don't support any claim that there is an equivalence between corporate manslaughter and terrorism.  I wanted to point out, and I think that I managed to do so, that corporations have killed.

I am not an American, or an Indian, so I cannot 'vote accordingly'.  There are things that are legal in various places around the world, that aren't legal in Canada.  I am not going to ignore them when they happen, even though I personally may not be able to do anything about them, either with my ballot, or through force or arms.

I am not sure that this one was directed to me, but of course Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc workers are not 'oppressed specifically when Walmart toasters are rolling down the belt?'  Walmart may well have better management and logistics, they also pay less than Canadian Tire and The Bay.  There are buying power issues, political leverage issues, environmental, discrimination.  My material quality of life isn't affected by Walmart, not in a large way.  Though it isn't always possible, I try to buy Cambridge first, then Ontario, then Canada, then American, then European, then rotw.

Most of my vitriol was actually directed at your fellow traveller. If some of it splashed on you, sorry bout that.
No one is forced to sell their products to Walmart. Similarly, my farm went belly up because it wasn't run efficiently enough, not because the price of wheat was too low. The modern economy is all about choices, and I chose to join the army. What do you call your acquisition strategy? Nationalism? Isn't that shameful these days, like racism? It certainly isn't any more economically efficient. By the way, I disown that goddamn plane/train/skier. I want my money back.

Here is what the Government of Saskatchewan is trying to do to help prevent the unnecessary deaths.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/index.htm
One thing to note from those 330 deaths however, is that most of them appear to have happened on family run farms.
http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca/farmsafety/fatalities.htm

Contrast this with third world governments. That's the point. We care and we try real hard, and still there is literally blood on the food you eat. Don't forget, a family farm is a business. Just like Walmart only smaller.

I agree that this is one of the reasons that corporations have limited liability, stating that it is 'The reason' is far too black and white.  Corporations have evolved a great deal over the past 250 years, and a good number of the laws written by all countries are to promote, limit and govern their actions.

Once again though, I will say that I cannot 'vote accordingly' in most of these cases, as I live in Canada.  Thankfully we have worked through most of the problems that countries around the world are facing.

Again, I don't believe that corporations are close to the same level as terrorists.  I don't see anything in the post that you quoted that would lead you to believe this.  I do believe that if a decision is made to commit acts outside your borders where there would be criminal or civil punishments were you to do the same at home, you are a criminal.  Of course it is left to the courts to decide this, and I hope that you would agree most courts around the world are not to Canadian standards.

That is, just plain, "the Reason". Limited Liability means you only lose the money that you put in. That's also why your pension fund can't be grabbed when Big Tobacco loses another lawsuit, even if the fund shares ownership of the RJ Reynolds. They only lose the value of their shares, not all the money they have. Come to think of it, we can sidestep our disagreement by using the tobacco industry as our example. The don't "murder" people, but we can all agree that they are evil bastards who should be held personally responsible for the leading cause of death. They are 90% as evil as the Taliban, and we can agree that is a problem our system needs to fix.

I offer no support to terrorists, that I am aware of at least.  Perhaps some of the goods that I buy legally are funding them?

See my reply to the other guy. You jump in the fight in support of a guy, I'm gonna beat you with the same stick as him.

I am not anti-corporate at all, I just don't believe that there should be a lesser standard for a corporation that for a person, it should be a higher one.

How does that work exactly? Corporations being composed of people and all, the pieces are individually held to the "person" standard.
I'm not really much of a Libertarian either, but people make that mistake sometimes.

Life and death in the third world is much the same as it was here 100 or more years ago. People don't know enough history. People still die at work. The difference between them and us, is our corporations:
A. exist;
B. function efficiently;
C. are accountable in courts of law.
Because our government permits. This is what raised us out of the nasty, brutish and short livestyle of 100 years ago.

And please don't tell me to STFU, it isn't polite.  Even in disagreement, this thread has been civil with that exception.

I make no apology. First, falsely accusing people of murder is offensive. Second, speaking to me in person is like watching an episode of Trailer Park Boys. Where I come from, STFU is polite and civil. I must ask you to respect my culture and heritage.

 

[FrenchAffair]

It might also allow health care proffesionals to bill what they feel their time is worth, in a competitive and increasingly efficient manner, as opposed to having wages and schedules dictated to them by a beaurocracy that consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the health care budget.

A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.

 

[FrenchAffair]

Is it responsible?  Who is to say, my mom wouldn't think so but I know when I was living in Red Deer after graduation I wouldn't have paid for healthcare, not necessarily because I couldn't but because I was young and "It will never happen to me" was my mantra.

And then when you or someone under your care gets diagnosed with cancer you have no way to pay for it. You won’t be able to get insurance because it is a pre-existing condition, treatment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no public service to pay for it for you. You will end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (if you can even get the loans) just so you can be given the treatment that is needed to (maybe) save your life.

I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life.

 

[FrenchAffair]

I don't have one either. We libertarians must fall back on the argument that the average lifespan of Americans continues to increase. I wonder how health care works in Japan? Do they have public health care or is it just all the fish that keeps them healthy?

” Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee.”

Japan spends almost 9% of their national GDP on health care.

And statically the US has one of the worst health care systems in the developed world.

In 1960 the US was 12th in the world in infant mortality, now they are 23rd
In 1945 the US was 1st in womens life expectancy, now they are 20th
In 1945 the US was 1st in mens life expectancy, now they are 21st

The US also currently ranks 67th in the world in immunization, right behind Botswana.

So thank you for demonstrating 2 excellent points supporting universal health care. 

 

[a_majoor]

And then when you or someone under your care gets diagnosed with cancer you have no way to pay for it. You won’t be able to get insurance because it is a pre-existing condition, treatment costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no public service to pay for it for you. You will end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (if you can even get the loans) just so you can be given the treatment that is needed to (maybe) save your life.

People take chances all the time, and should reap the rewards or consequences of their actions. When you are faced with the consequences of your actions you tend to take the prudent course. In your world view the person who takes the risk is allowed to  escape the consequences at the expense of others. I notice that no where do you say that you, personally will defray the cost of someone else's thoughtless actions.

I think the health care of all people should not be contingent on what that individual can afford. I put no price on human life.

Then you are in a minority. Check your insurance policies closely some day.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.

Denistry seems to work well.....

 

[Donut]

A better solution would be to fix the beaurocracy than give doctors and hospitals free reign to charge what they want.

http://www.northernlife.ca/News/LocalNews/2007/04-18-07-docsUSA.asp?NLStory=04-18-07-docsUSA

Please note the exodus of physicians from Canada coincided with the implementation of the Canada health act...but it may just be a coincidence.  :


Doesn't matter who pays the bills, if there's no one willing to stick around and do the work for peanuts.