Doesn't neoliberalism exist in European countries that have state operated/managed health care? Or are you saying neoliberalism is peculiarly American, or maybe Anglo-American?

It seems like neoliberalism is just the theology of capitalism. Capitalism is selfish, so what's new?

Well your boss exerts authority over you, but you're still responsible for yourself, right? — frank

Unlike life or citizenship, work is a voluntary agreement. But even then an employer carries a certain responsibility for their employees.

I think you stretched that factor all out of shape. I brought it up just to show that many cultures have allowed citizens to suffer hunger. On what principle do we say they're wrong? — frank

The principles I just laid out. Either reward is related to work or it isn't. If it is, then we'd not have a problem because the gap between rich and poor would be impossible (no one can work a billion times harder than another), if it's not, then why shouldn't the lazy get rewards (benefits), we've no grounds to deny them because reward is unrelated to work.

It's not super apparent to me why it should work this way. Can't people litigate to receive compensation when they're victimized? — frank

For a start, litigation is controlled by law which is in turn controlled by the state, so their ability to do so is already a state response. Secondly, litigation has a cost barrier so it's not an available recourse to everyone - the state would, in effect, be providing recourse to the wealthy but not the poor.

Can't a govt agency like OSHA guarantee their safety? — frank

From all health harms? It could, I suppose, but it'd have to have laws against bad diet, lack of recreational facilities, taxation and investment in aspects of the food and drug industries, negotiations at world summits and trade deals... It'd quite the remit if it were to cover every way a government policy might harm the health of it's populace. Likewise with litigation really. Which industry/car owner would one sue for one's lung problems resulting from urban air pollution?

I don't have a problem paying taxes so that a kid somewhere can get surgery.
Why would I?
Found in many civilized societies.

But they didn't mean the state should help the needy. — frank

The church was the state. This distinction between a state that had power to enforce and a voluntary morality of religion is a new invention.

If you pay taxes, the state must be held responsible. They should at least make sure, for people with less money, to be assured of proper medical care. Whatever kind of care is needed or wated (so even witchcraft doctors).

I pay, OBLIGATORY, 125 euros every month and must pay nevertheless 380 euro as my own contribution! And I have to pay a visit to a shaman myself. That pisses me off! I think I need a doctor... I get stressed by these kinds to worry about (not to think about the destruction of Nature...)

I pay, OBLIGATORY, 125 euros every month and must pay nevertheless 380 euro as my own contribution! And I have to pay a visit to a shaman myself. — Prishon

What? Why do you have to pay a shaman? Also I am interested, those 125 euros to what medical (or health care) assistance is related? Is like an insurance or something? I am European like you but never heard of that.

This is not a moral argument, but it's a good one. — frank

But suppose we say that the state is good and that state welfare serves the purpose of preserving the state. Would this make it a moral argument?

what — javi2541997

I pay that every month to a health insurance company. My girlfriend too! Costs upto 380 euro I must pay myself. In Holland. I dont know about the shaman but virtually all alternatives have to be payed for. Not included in the assurance.

I pay that every month to a health insurance company. — Prishon

OK, now I understand you better. My parents and my pay for a health insurance company too. The costs are around 129 €.
I thought you were referring to the State itself as the inversion from the taxes.

Doesn't neoliberalism exist in European countries that have state operated/managed health care? Or are you saying neoliberalism is peculiarly American, or maybe Anglo-American?

It seems like neoliberalism is just the theology of capitalism. Capitalism is selfish, so what's new? — Bitter Crank

I've just been interested in Neoliberalism for a while now. I was just noting that the best argument for state funded healthcare would be rejected by a neoliberal because of the importance it places on states and the health of society.

We're still not on the same page. Some of the early responses to the OP were

1. Most countries do it

Which isn't true. Few countries provide 100% state funded healthcare.

2. A country isn't civilized if it doesn't.

Which isn't true.

1. Most countries do it

Which isn't true. Few countries provide 100% state funded healthcare.

2. A country isn't civilized if it doesn't.

Which isn't true. — frank

I often wonder if, when people talk in universal, either/or, black/white dichotomies, they know they are doing it? Maybe someone said "100%" or bothered to define what "civilized" meant. But unless and until those questions are properly addressed, people will continue to talk past each other; talking to straw men.

No state anywhere is 100% anything. And the definition of "civilized" is wide open. How about "more or less funded in X state than in Y state" and "X state is more or less civilized than Y state"? Seems to make more sense to me.

Countries that fund health care more than countries that don't fund health care as much, are more civilized. I define "civilized" as a state that takes care of it's citizens. Civilization - civilized - citizens - civics. Get it? An advanced stage of social and cultural development, a civilized society, enlightened, educated, advanced, developed, cultured, polite and well-mannered. You know, as opposed to "sink or swim" barbaric, "you're on your own" capitalistic BS countries that imprison a large percentage of their population, have the highest health care costs with the least desirable health care.

I don't have a problem paying taxes so that a kid somewhere can get surgery.
Why would I?
Found in many civilized societies. — jorndoe

:up: Beautiful attitude! Kudos.

I want to bounce this nagging doubt I have off of you and others interested:

Indian Giver Tax Puzzle

Scenario 1
Person A to person B: I'm going to pay you $2,000 for the work you've done but I'm gonna need $250 back. You get in your hand $1750. The typical way taxes work.

Scenario 2
Person A to person B: I'm gonna pay you $1750 ($2000 - $250) for your work. You can keep it all. You get $1750.

I can't for the life of me get why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2? A government can save millions by saving on the paperwork that's involved in tax deductions/payments which is no longer required.

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2?
— James Riley

That's tax. If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? Something doesn't add up. — TheMadFool

I can't for the life of me get why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2? A government can save millions with the amount of paperwork that's involved in tax deductions/payments. :chin: — TheMadFool

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2?

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2? — James Riley

That's tax. If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? Something doesn't add up.

:flower:

If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? — TheMadFool

I guess I'm confused. I've been both an employer and an employee in my life. As an employee, the $250.00 was never given to me and then taken back; it was just taken. The employer would offer to pay $2k, withhold $250.00 and send it in to government. As an employer, I withheld the $250.00 and often matched it, or a portion of it, and then sent it to the government on a monthly or quarterly basis.

While I agree that employers should not be burdened with doing the government's job for it (the government should tax the employee at the end of the year) I understand why the government does not do that. Employees don't make enough money, or are not disciplined enough to save the $250.00. So the government puts a gun to the employers head and makes him/her tap the employee's check before the employee even gets it.

:ok:

I think you agree with those who say state funded healthcare is a sign of civilization.

I think the reason people think the alternative to state funded healthcare is a grey cultural wasteland is the success of Neoliberalism at making people assume that exploitation and disregard for labor is the norm for corporations. It wasn't that way in the 1960s and 70s, and (white) people then just as firmly assumed that corporations were supposed to care about communities (of white people).

Maybe that's partly why so many responders to this thread didn't understand that I was looking for meaty supportive arguments.

I think the other reason is that leftists aren't used to actually having to support their viewpoint. They think raving like a schizo is their main job.

But suppose we say that the state is good and that state welfare serves the purpose of preserving the state. Would this make it a moral argument? — Apollodorus

Why is the state good? You could say states are natural and that health and goodness are equivalent. Healthy pine trees are good. Healthy states are good.

I think you agree with those who say state funded healthcare is a sign of civilization. — frank

I do. But I also think it is a part of human nature. Even Neandertals took care of their people.

It wasn't that way in the 1960s and 70s, and (white) people then just as firmly assumed that corporations were supposed to care about communities (of white people). — frank

Yes. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that we used to have up to a 90% marginal tax rate. With that high a rate, the rich naturally started buying politicians and legislating loop holes and exemptions. Unfortunately, when their employees in the legislature got done providing loopholes, they started dropping the tax rate, precipitately, and there was no commensurate closure of the loopholes and exemptions. So now those (white?) communities have garnered unto themselves the majority of the loot and pay little or no taxes, and everyone else subsidizes their socialist freeloading asses.

do. But I also think it is a part of human nature. Even Neandertals took care of their people. — James Riley

We aren't descended from Neanderthals (for the most part), but I take your point. We care for one another by nature.

We aren't descended from Neanderthals (for the most part), but I take your point. — frank

I toss them out as an "even" argument. Cro-Magnons and others which were our ancestors did likewise. I just think it more demonstrative to say "Even a Neandertal is more civilized than a Republican."

Even a Neandertal is more civilized than a Republican." — James Riley

Neanderthals never built civilizations. Civilizations are the product of, and the means by which humans maintain advanced skillsets over time.

Neanderthals never built civilizations. Civilizations are the product of, and the means by which humans maintain advanced skillsets over time. — frank

We are not talking about civilizations. We are talking about acting civilized. Regardless, I would argue that taking care of one another is apparently and advanced skillset, since so many countries have yet to maintain it.

You're saying that per founding principles, the US govt doesn't fund healthcare.

I would say that if you put more Jefferson in your mix, you'd see that this isn't strictly true. He thought the Treasury should be controlled by Congress. I don't think anything in the Constitution rules out the legislation of universal healthcare.

personally think this is not just immoral but irrational -- or in more colloquial language, stupid. — Xtrix

You're referring to the govt's bias toward protecting the wealth of the wealthy. :up:

You're saying that per founding principles, the US govt doesn't fund healthcare. — frank

The US government has no national healthcare service, but yet it helps with the cost for poor people (medicaid), the elderly (medicare), children and the disabled. This money -- taxpayer money -- goes to directly into the private healthcare system: to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. So in the sense that the state "should" mostly serve private wealth -- then yes, having no national health service is based in the principles enunciated by Jay, Madison, et. al.. and is in my view a disgrace.

It's irrational that we allow something as fundamental as healthcare (especially life-saving drugs) to be in bed with private ownership, with not even a public option. That's a monopoly of private owners, funded largely by taxpayers. That's like saying education should consist only of privately owned schools -- which, in my estimate, would be in some ways less detrimental than our current healthcare system, at least in terms of deaths (although you can certainly die from ignorance).

Similar things happen in national defense. This is one of the more egregious examples. There's another privately owned monopoly on something that the taxpayers fund, at the tune of $703.7 billion dollars in 2021. Directly into the hands of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc.

Behind these companies are "owners," which are just people with a lot of money, who can afford to be major shareholders and who stock the boardrooms and executive suites. It is to these people that our collective taxes are ultimately destined, to say nothing of the subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure and defense, and the well being of millions of their employees which the state provides.

It's a wonderful set up. If you're wealthy.

You're referring to the govt's bias toward protecting the wealth of the wealthy. :up: — frank

Indeed.

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! :eyes:

Let me get this straight:

Are Americans here on PF starting a debate about universal healthcare?

Let me give a hint before you start the debate that usually will in the end break up on the lines of the "culture war"; with progressives and pinko-liberals on one side and conservatives and right-wing libertarians on the other side.

Just ask yourself:

How much worth is the life of your fellow citizen?

Is it much? A new car? Or not much? Few cents? Does it matter? If not, do you then have something, anything, in common with your fellow citizen?

Ask yourself, is your fellow worth anything to you or not. If you answer that you don't care a shit about people's citizenship, whether if they are your countrymen or -women or not (and nations and nationalities are bullshit), just remember: The World does give a shit, on your nationality even if you personally think it doesn't matter. Just look at what is happening in Kabul airport.

(Quite separately of the issue, why citizenship does matter:)


If you answer that the "market mechanism" will take care of it, look at how nearly all other prosperous capitalist societies have solved the problem.

This money -- taxpayer money -- goes to directly into the private healthcare system: to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. — Xtrix

True, but a lot of American hospitals are non-profit institutions. Here's a few of the bigger ones:

1. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian (Pittsburgh) — $10.19 billion
2. The Cleveland Clinic — $9.14 billion
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles) — $7.99 billion
4. New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center (New York) — $7.52 billion
5. Florida Hospital Orlando — $7.12 billion
6. Stanford (Calif.) Hospital — $6.71 billion
7. Montefiore Medical Center-Moses Division Hospital (Bronx, N.Y.) — $6.19 billion
8. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) — $5.98 billion
9. Temple University Hospital (Philadelphia) — $5.9 billion
10. Orlando (Fla.) Regional Medical Center — $5.71 billion
11. Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston) — $5.64 billion
12. Crozer-Chester Medical Center (Upland, Pa.) — $4.81 billion
13. Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center — $4.72 billion
14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston) — $4.58 billion
15. Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, Tenn.) — $4.52 billion
16. Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital (Indianapolis) — $4.19 billion
17. Tampa (Fla.) General Hospital — $4.16 billion
18. Northwestern Memorial Hospital (Chicago) — $4.15 billion
19. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Philadelphia) — $4.12 billion
20. The Methodist Hospital (Houston) — $4 billion
21. Duke University Hospital (Durham, N.C.) — $3.92 billion
22. Yale-New Haven (Conn.) Hospital — $3.9 billion
23. North Shore University Hospital (Manhasset, N.Y.) — $3.84 billion
24. Norton Hospital (Louisville, Ky.) — $3.77 billion
25. Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center — $3.69 billion
26. New York University Langone Medical Center (New York) — $3.64 billion
27. Lehigh Valley Hospital-Cedar Crest (Allentown, Pa.) — $3.54 billion
28. Methodist University Hospital (Memphis, Tenn.) — $3.49 billion
29. Rush University Medical Center (Chicago) — $3.49 billion
30. Beaumont Hospital (Royal Oak, Mich.) — $3.38 billion
31. Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital — $3.31 billion
32. The University of Chicago Medical Center — $3.3 billion
33. Geisinger Medical Center (Danville, Pa.) — $3.22 billion
34. Baptist Hospital of Miami (Fla.) — $3.2 billion
35. Aurora Saint Luke’s Medical Center (Milwaukee) — $3.19 billion
36. Baptist Medical Center (San Antonio) — $3.18 billion
37. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (New Brunswick, N.J.) — $3.15 billion
38. The Mount Sinai Medical Center (New York) — $3.11 billion
39. Barnes-Jewish Hospital (St. Louis) — $3.09 billion
40. Saint Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center (Phoenix) — $2.98 billion
41. UMass Memorial Medical Center-University Campus (Worcester, Mass.) — $2.94 billion
42. Sharp Memorial Hospital (San Diego) — $2.92 billion
43. Long Island Jewish Medical Center (New Hyde Park, N.Y.) — $2.9 billion
44. Washington Hospital Center (Washington, D.C.) — $2.90 billion
45. Saint Luke’s Hospital-Bethlehem Campus — $2.89 billion
46. Albert Einstein Medical Center (Philadelphia) — $2.82 billion
47. Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center (Houston) — $2.77 billion
48. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York) — $2.77 billion
49. AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center-City Campus (Atlantic City, N.J.) — $2.76 billion
50. Sutter Memorial Hospital (Sacramento) — $2.75 billion

This is from a website commenting on how wealthy nonprofits are like they don't have to plan for the future. Their CEOs do make insane salaries, tho.