Aliens in the ER

[GeneralVeers]

Calling someone a "racist" is the sign of intellectual bankruptcy on the Left. They can no longer come up with a rational argument to support their position, so they just assume the other side is "racist" since they don't agree.

Most people automatically recoil from the charge of racism, which is why the Left has continually won arguments in the realm of welfare, immigration, language, and culture.

I for one don't shirk from that charge and will respond vigorously when someone calls me that.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted65604]

deleted. You know what screw it, I've got work tomorrow and I don't want a thread war.

Make your argument! Don't just call us racists and then leave. If you can't articulate a valid counter-argument then you need to re-evaluate your political opinions. Are you ignorant and just blindly supporting liberal policy?

 

[Painter1]

Just because 80% of the world is a miserable place to live, doesn't mean we should accept with open arms everyone on humanitarian terms. If we do that, we would in turn make America a miserable place to live as well.

We accepted you with open arms; didn't we? We gave you green card, right?

I've noticed that as a whole you have a bitter view of the U.S. and it's polices. Which again makes me wonder why you don't just go back to your country. Is it because Canada won't pay you as well?

 

[la gringa]

if this were facebook, i'd "like" painter1's comment.

 

[GeneralVeers]

We accepted you with open arms; didn't we? We gave you green card, right?

I've noticed that as a whole you have a bitter view of the U.S. and it's polices. Which again makes me wonder why you don't just go back to your country. Is it because Canada won't pay you as well?

I have a bitter view in general of everything (you may have noticed).

When I came to the U.S. (legally as a student) 13 years ago it was a different place. At the time Canada was almost bankrupt from 30 years of social welfare policy, and the U.S. by contrast though not perfect was much stronger economically and supported individual property rights and freedoms to a greater extent.

Things have changed over both the last Bush and Obama. America has made the mistakes Canada made 30 years ago, and has increasingly centralized its government while taking away individual freedoms, and expanding the welfare state (hence the mess we're in now). Canada realized the error of its ways about 6 years ago, and has made strides to curb the rising entitlement costs, and attract business which has led to economic growth.

I still wouldn't go back to Canada because I believe the United States has unlimited capacity to bounce back and eventually address the problems our elected leaders have caused us.

None of this of course answers the question of how I am "racist" for not wanting illegal immigration.

 

[SuckySurgeon7]

I suggest that we ennumerate the traits, behaviors and policies that we would like to see in both those individuals who are in the U.S. legally AND illegally and in the doctors/politicians who have the power to make sweeping changes.

a) When at the hospital
1. Please use the emergency room for EMERGENCIES; this is a problem of stupidity, not immigration
2. Be respectful to the staff (always).

b) General policy
1. Penalties for businesses that hire anyone in this country who does not have a SS#. (Small fines; money goes to US Customs and Border Patrol)
2. SS# required for state supported benefits to education; if your child is in elementary school, he or she may attend classes but may not receive free lunches, glasses, learning disability materials etc. without a valid SS#. I don't want to doom another generation through lack of education, but I'm unwilling to allow them to receive material benefits they didn't pay for in taxes. They are already getting a free education...
3. When you're in this country, at least try to learn English.

Slightly off topic, but these are some other policies that I like:

4. Drug screening required before SS benefits can be received.
5. Patients receiving free medical care waive their right to sue their caregivers. Hopefully this would help liability prone hospitals volunteer their services.

 

[sumguy]

y'all are living on stolen land. you have no more right to be here than anyone else. and you're rich. so chill out and deal.

 

[GeneralVeers]

y'all are living on stolen land. you have no more right to be here than anyone else. and you're rich. so chill out and deal.

Amazingly eloquent and cogent argument. Bravo!

 

[SuckySurgeon7]

y'all are living on stolen land. you have no more right to be here than anyone else. and you're rich. so chill out and deal.

Just to be clear here, who exactly is the "y'all" you are talking about? Surely you're not making this into a racism issue?

Seriously, if you have a genuine idea then post it, but if you are not going to contribute something useful, don't say something that makes you look, sound and smell like a TROLL.

 

[sumguy]

Amazingly eloquent and cogent argument. Bravo!

thanks

 

[sumguy]

Just to be clear here, who exactly is the "y'all" you are talking about? Surely you're not making this into a racism issue?

Seriously, if you have a genuine idea then post it, but if you are not going to contribute something useful, don't say something that makes you look, sound and smell like a TROLL.

by "y'all" i mean "you all." that is, the people who are posting. i'm not making this into a racism issue. my statement is valid regardless of race.

my "genuine" idea is: regardless of what u.s. law says, the people posting here have no more of a right to live on this land than anyone else. and, that doctors are rich and should try to be grateful for what they have instead of complaining about people who have less than them. that is all. not trolling.

 

[GeneralVeers]

by "y'all" i mean "you all." that is, the people who are posting. i'm not making this into a racism issue. my statement is valid regardless of race.

my "genuine" idea is: regardless of what u.s. law says, the people posting here have no more of a right to live on this land than anyone else. and, that doctors are rich and should try to be grateful for what they have instead of complaining about people who have less than them. that is all. not trolling.

Are you a disciple of Karl Marx?

 

[sjdcMD]

by "y'all" i mean "you all." that is, the people who are posting. i'm not making this into a racism issue. my statement is valid regardless of race.

my "genuine" idea is: regardless of what u.s. law says, the people posting here have no more of a right to live on this land than anyone else. and, that doctors are rich and should try to be grateful for what they have instead of complaining about people who have less than them. that is all. not trolling.

HAHAHAH we are greatful for what we have, we worked hard for numerous years to be in the postion we are in today. Everyone whines about a physicians salary, deal what we deal with everyday. I am talking about what i believe what is fair. When i see my money i earned being abused right in front of me it's infuriating. They take advantage of everything. YOU ARE A TROLL and VERY "EDUCATED". We stole the land its quite amusing.

 

[sumguy]

HAHAHAH we are greatful for what we have, we worked hard for numerous years to be in the postion we are in today. Everyone whines about a physicians salary, deal what we deal with everyday. I am talking about what i believe what is fair. When i see my money i earned being abused right in front of me it's infuriating. They take advantage of everything. YOU ARE A TROLL and VERY "EDUCATED". We stole the land its quite amusing.

oh god. "deal what we deal with everyday." get over yourself. you're the one who is whining. and i didn't say you stole the land. i said you're living on stolen land. there is a difference.

 

[sjdcMD]

y'all are living on stolen land. you have no more right to be here than anyone else. and you're rich. so chill out and deal.

You think that just because we make more money than average. We have to deal with the bull****. LIKE YOU SAID " your rich so chill out and deal" Deal with the bull**** of illegal aliens in America. I don't think so. We are the people who actually earn a income and pay taxes. Not sit home and collect a check and medical beneifts which you don't deserve and did absolotely nothing to achieve it. Being a physician is not something you see on tv in a fantasy world. I live in freedom and the illegals could to but they choose not to. Make a effort but they get everything handed to them so what do they need to go and put the effort to become a citizen.

sumguy what is your profession?

 

[Substance]

The issue isn't with the illegal immigrants.

The issue is with those that hire them. The immigrants won't want to come here if they can't find work and make some money. The penalties should be very severe for those that hire illegal immigrants as labor.

 

[deleted65604]

i said you're living on stolen land. there is a difference.

The stolen land argument is really lame.

Every place in the world is stolen land from somebody. How do you think the Indian tribe that owned the land before our ancestors got there? They had kicked the previous tribe off the land using brutality and murder. They were also living on "stolen" land. The entire face of this planet has been a continuous blood-bath since records have been kept. Almost every piece of ground in this world has changed tribal hands dozens if not hundreds of times. The current Native Americans live a life that is infinitely better, more secure, and more potentially prosperous than their ancestors ever had. The only reason I feel sorry for them is that they recieve too much government assistance which has destroyed their character as a people.

 

[sumguy]

The stolen land argument is really lame.

Every place in the world is stolen land from somebody. How do you think the Indian tribe that owned the land before our ancestors got there? They had kicked the previous tribe off the land using brutality and murder. They were also living on "stolen" land. The entire face of this planet has been a continuous blood-bath since records have been kept. Almost every piece of ground in this world has changed tribal hands dozens if not hundreds of times. The current Native Americans live a life that is infinitely better, more secure, and more potentially prosperous than their ancestors ever had. The only reason I feel sorry for them is that they recieve too much government assistance which has destroyed their character as a people.

it's not lame. nothing you said is a counter argument to my claim that you have no more right to be here than anyone else. if anything, your analysis of history confirms it.

also, it's not for you to decide if someone is better off than their ancestors.

 

[deleted65604]

my "genuine" idea is: regardless of what u.s. law says, the people posting here have no more of a right to live on this land than anyone else. and, that doctors are rich and should try to be grateful for what they have instead of complaining about people who have less than them. that is all. not trolling.

I'd be interested to know exactly what your political solution is for the current immigration problem. Do you think there isn't a problem with millions of illegal immigrants consuming resources and not paying taxes? Do you see a national security risk in not knowing who is here in our country and why? Don't you think legal immigrants would be a better solution? Please articulate your position other than just thinking we're racist.

Do you disregard more aspects of US law than just immigration law? Do you believe we are the only country in the world that should have open borders?

Do you dream of a new world order where there are no countries? Do you think it would be just for me to show up in France, and then demand free medical care while not paying taxes?

It would be nice to naturalize every foreign born person that is here illegally, but it would bankrupt us even more than we already are. 14 trillion dollars of debt is nothing to shake a stick at. Give us a few years and the interest on that debt is going to start becoming a significant part of our expenses as a nation. Already, our credit rating has been down-graded for the first time in history. What does that mean? Higher interest rates as we are now seen to be more of a credit risk. When the interest rates rise a few percentile and we are paying on 14 trillion dollars, we won't be able to pay the interest. What will we do? Print money. What will that cause? Hyperinflation. As the dollar plummets, the world economy will suck even more than it already does.

The only reason that makes sense as to why you wouldn't want the US to be fiscally responsible is if you want it to fail.

The liberals and progressives have become so desparate to buy votes and power by promising entitlement programs, that they are compromising our financial stability.

I donate thousands of dollars a year to help hungry people. Besides direct charity, every dollar I spend employs somebody, or makes a business that much more viable. Complaining about "rich" people is counter-productive. The "rich" are who employ people, and motor an economy that keeps people employed.

 

[deleted65604]

it's not lame. nothing you said is a counter argument to my claim that you have no more right to be here than anyone else. if anything, your analysis of history confirms it.

also, it's not for you to decide if someone is better off than their ancestors.

I can decide that someone is better off than their ancestors, especially if it is obvious that they are.

Am I understanding that you don't believe the USA made the world a better place for its citizens or the citizens of the world?

Where are you from? Where do you live? Where did your ancestors live?

This American experience is UNEQUIVACALLY a unique experience in the history of mankind. What about current USA conditions do you think is not better than say 500 years ago? What about the experience of women in the past? How were their rights and living conditions then compared to now? What percent of the billions of people who have lived on this planet have had clean water to drink, easily obtainable food, a consistently warm place to sleep and access to free education k-12. What percentage of the people on the face of this planet have had the level of security and freedom that all our citizens now hold?

 

[GeneralVeers]

y'all are living on stolen land. you have no more right to be here than anyone else. and you're rich. so chill out and deal.

You so far have not presented anything in the way of facts, or even a comprehensible argument. Answer some of the direct questions posed to you regarding the specifics of your philosophy and we might actually take you for something other than an ignorant troll.

 

[Pharmavixen]

I still wouldn't go back to Canada because I believe the United States has unlimited capacity to bounce back and eventually address the problems our elected leaders have caused us.

We'd totally welcome you back, for one. And I think you'd like our current prime minister; he's pretty far to the right of anybody we've ever had before.

I might quibble with you over the causes of US economic woes. Canada is better off these days because we didn't follow the US down the rabbit hole of deregulation. We regard the whole "invisible hand of the market" thing with a measure of skepticism. The events of the past few years have proved us right.

You are correct about spurious accusations of racism. Icon of the left Noam Chomsky decries such accusations; he says calling somebody a racist basically ends the discussion because there's no effective counter argument. What do you say when someone calls you a racist? Do you say, "But I'm not a racist." Like any other ad hominem mode of debate, it's an epithet, not an idea.

 

[Ibid]

I have a bitter view in general of everything (you may have noticed).

When I came to the U.S. (legally as a student) 13 years ago it was a different place. At the time Canada was almost bankrupt from 30 years of social welfare policy, and the U.S. by contrast though not perfect was much stronger economically and supported individual property rights and freedoms to a greater extent.

Things have changed over both the last Bush and Obama. America has made the mistakes Canada made 30 years ago, and has increasingly centralized its government while taking away individual freedoms, and expanding the welfare state (hence the mess we're in now). Canada realized the error of its ways about 6 years ago, and has made strides to curb the rising entitlement costs, and attract business which has led to economic growth.

I still wouldn't go back to Canada because I believe the United States has unlimited capacity to bounce back and eventually address the problems our elected leaders have caused us.

None of this of course answers the question of how I am "racist" for not wanting illegal immigration.

The point you are making here is highly salient imo. The fact is if you are rich (or even have just a faily small amount of capital) you can move it across international frontiers at will. If you have no capital then you have no choice but to move yourself, if you can.

So my point is the "law" favours those with capital and discriminates against those who don't.

There are really only two sorts of people on the planet, rich and poor, nothing else.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The point you are making here is highly salient imo. The fact is if you are rich (or even have just a faily small amount of capital) you can move it across international frontiers at will. If you have no capital then you have no choice but to move yourself, if you can.

So my point is the "law" favours those with capital and discriminates against those who don't.

There are really only two sorts of people on the planet, rich and poor, nothing else.

Why is that a bad thing? The "rich" get to do a lot of things that the "poor" can't do. It's more beneficial for our society to take rich people with money as immigrants, than to take poor, uneducated people.

 

[deleted65604]

The point you are making here is highly salient imo. The fact is if you are rich (or even have just a faily small amount of capital) you can move it across international frontiers at will. If you have no capital then you have no choice but to move yourself, if you can.

So my point is the "law" favours those with capital and discriminates against those who don't.

There are really only two sorts of people on the planet, rich and poor, nothing else.

Define poor.

 

[Ibid]

Why is that a bad thing? The "rich" get to do a lot of things that the "poor" can't do. It's more beneficial for our society to take rich people with money as immigrants, than to take poor, uneducated people.

Oh, I didn't state it was bad. Although I might do. Really I was making the point that you did, which is that this is not about race. It is about capital v labour, which I knew you already understood because of your Karl Marx quip.

I guess if I was going to continue to argue the point I would say it is fine for rich people to buy BMWs while poor people can't. But it's not ok to be able to buy yourself better healthcare.(just imo)

I've just outed myself as being in favour of corrupt socialised medicene instead of corrupt private healthcare.

The ethics of denuding the third world of its skilled workers is another point. I think it may benefit the first world in the short term but not in the long run. Think H1N1. Diseases don't respect borders.

Define poor.

Yes, it's all relative. But I will have a stab just for fun.

Rich is about 15 million US. This is the amount of money you need to be able to say to any other soul on the planet "_uck off" and then slam down the phone and know it will have no meaningfull consequences for you. If you don't have this amount of "_uck off money" then you are poor.

 

[danzman]

Oh, I didn't state it was bad. Although I might do. Really I was making the point that you did, which is that this is not about race. It is about capital v labour, which I knew you already understood because of your Karl Marx quip.

I guess if I was going to continue to argue the point I would say it is fine for rich people to buy BMWs while poor people can't. But it's not ok to be able to buy yourself better healthcare.(just imo)

I've just outed myself as being in favour of corrupt socialised medicene instead of corrupt private healthcare.

The ethics of denuding the third world of its skilled workers is another point. I think it may benefit the first world in the short term but not in the long run. Think H1N1. Diseases don't respect borders.



Yes, it's all relative. But I will have a stab just for fun.

Rich is about 15 million US. This is the amount of money you need to be able to say to any other soul on the planet "_uck off" and then slam down the phone and know it will have no meaningfull consequences for you. If you don't have this amount of "_uck off money" then you are poor.

15million!? I think this may be a little off. Very few people in the US have this kind of money, and not many of them are doctors. Where are you coming from?

 

[GeneralVeers]

15million!? I think this may be a little off. Very few people in the US have this kind of money, and not many of them are doctors. Where are you coming from?

I agree. I want to know where he works that he has $15 million! Sign me up!

 

[deleted65604]

There are really only two sorts of people on the planet, rich and poor, nothing else.

I'm still not getting your point. I'm assuming that you are simply being facetious. Your statements seem to conflict with each other. Seriously, I'd be interested in a legitimate explanation of the above statement. Why do you think that healthcare is different than food, housing, clothes, transportation, heating, hygiene, or recreation?

 

[GeneralVeers]

This statement is false, a gross oversimplification.

I didn't ask you to define rich. I asked you to define poor. Please do so.

It's interesting to note that the riots in Britain by the "poor" were because the "poor" there didn't have access to luxury items or Mercedes. Most of them had food, housing, nice sneakers, and cellphones. THEY are the face of the modern "poor".

 

[ccfccp]

It's interesting to note that the riots in Britain by the "poor" were because the "poor" there didn't have access to luxury items or Mercedes. Most of them had food, housing, nice sneakers, and cellphones. THEY are the face of the modern "poor".

That's because "a chicken in every pot" (look up the reference med students/pre-meds...) turned into "two cars in every garage and an I-phone." It's a whole new world...

 

[WilcoWorld]

I think I understand him, and it makes sense. With 15 million, one can actually get some pull with government, and this allows the "rich" to influence government such that the government further enriches them (at the expense of others). When government stops ensuring justice for all those under its rule, I think it has ceased doing its primary job. That's why it's a bad thing for the rich to be favored by the law.

However, we have now gotten far afield of a discussion of doctors salaries, or, for that matter, the topic of this thread.

 

[deleted65604]

... the government further enriches them (at the expense of others)... That's why it's a bad thing for the rich to be favored by the law.

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/11/0...deral-income-taxes-do-rich-people-really-pay/

Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes

I've got a hard time believing that the rich are being made richer by the government when they are paying an extreme disproportion of income taxes. Who funds the government? By and large...the rich. Who benefits from the taxes collected? Everyone, but largely the poor. There is a large amount of redistribution of wealth going on in our country.

When government stops ensuring justice for all those under its rule, I think it has ceased doing its primary job.

Justice is definitely important. Don't forget Liberty either. As in,

I pledge allegience to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Could there come a point when taking away wealth from the wealthy takes away their freedom?

 

[WilcoWorld]

As for taxes, Warren Buffett sees it differently.

I agree, however, that the protection of liberty is a founding principle of our government. Not wanting to give up their money was a prime motivation of the founding fathers.

Oh jeez, I told myself I wasn't going to post on this thread...

 

[deleted65604]

As for taxes, Warren Buffett sees it differently.

Warren Buffet is talking about capital gains taxes. They have a lower tax rate. That is money which you make on your capital...money you have already earned, and paid income tax on. It is comparing apples and oranges. Warren Buffett does not earn a wage like his secretary. He is the boss. Interestingly, Warren Buffett owes the IRS millions that they have been trying to get him to pay for years. What a hypocrite!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf

 

[Ibid]

I'm still not getting your point. I'm assuming that you are simply being facetious. Your statements seem to conflict with each other. Seriously, I'd be interested in a legitimate explanation of the above statement. Why do you think that healthcare is different than food, housing, clothes, transportation, heating, hygiene, or recreation?

What I was meaning is that it is not a question of race but of spending power. Remember someone accused you of being racist, I was agreeing with you that this was not fair or accurate and suggested a better analysis.

Health care is diffrent in a lot of ways. First you choose those other items with a clear mind. You make health care choices when you are ill, which is not the best time to start allocating your resources. (to my mind)

Secondly it depends on your perspective and what you think health services are for. That might seem obvious but it's not. If you are a physician you tend to think in terms of personal services, one person at a time. If you are a policy maker on the other hand you might think in terms of the public good, equity, equality, distributed justice and so on. If you are an employer you might think in terms of keeping a healthy workforce. You might even consider that a healthy population is a matter of national security.

Consider the point I made about disease having no respect for borders. How should the government allocate scare resources to deal with infectious disease? Would you still leave this to the market? What if doctors didn't even have the capital to get in the line for a jab infront of a banker? Is that rational?

It's interesting to note that the riots in Britain by the "poor" were because the "poor" there didn't have access to luxury items or Mercedes. Most of them had food, housing, nice sneakers, and cellphones. THEY are the face of the modern "poor".

Interesting but a flawed analysis of what happened. To date about 2000 people have gone through the courts and many many of them had good jobs. Teachers, soldiers, nursery workers. All the usual suspects have used the riots to press their own hobby horse but the truth I suspect is rather complex. The other point is that the rioters were just a handful of people and there might be very little to learn save that a handful of people can cause a hell of a lot of trouble if they want to.

I think it has ceased doing its primary job. That's why it's a bad thing for the rich to be favored by the law.

That is essentially the knub of the matter. It boils down to what you think the government is for. Personally I found Clinton rather interesting in that respect. A small government man who still believed that the government had a duty to intervene and do good. Quite a balancing act.

However, we have now gotten far afield of a discussion of doctors salaries, or, for that matter, the topic of this thread.

Apologies. I think threads stay on topic for ten posts on average and then around the fifteen post mark someone mentions Hitler.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Secondly it depends on your perspective and what you think health services are for. That might seem obvious but it's not. If you are a physician you tend to think in terms of personal services, one person at a time. If you are a policy maker on the other hand you might think in terms of the public good, equity, equality, distributed justice and so on. If you are an employer you might think in terms of keeping a healthy workforce. You might even consider that a healthy population is a matter of national security.

Distributed Justice? I'm assuming this is the same as "Social Justice" which is a veiled term for income redistribution. It is immoral and unethical to take by force property from one person in order to give to another. One person's "distributed justice" is another person's oppression and theft.

 

[deleted65604]

You make health care choices when you are ill, which is not the best time to start allocating your resources.

Good point. However, I don't see that the other examples you state are relevant to setting apart healthcare as being intrinsically different than other resources. Employees are more efficient with better transportation, food, peaceful sleeping conditions, pleasant recreational activities, etc. Would you also argue for socialization of the transportation industry, or housing market, or food markets (although many aspects of these industries are seeing increasing government controls) so that we had a more efficient labor force?

If you are a policy maker on the other hand you might think in terms of the public good, equity, equality, distributed justice and so on.

What do you mean by "distributed justice?"

Consider the point I made about disease having no respect for borders. How should the government allocate scarce resources to deal with infectious disease?

The best resource to allocate resources is the free market. Look at socialist economies like China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Their people starve while huge stockpiles of food rot in government warehouses. In socialized industries which ignore the free market, ignoring the laws of supply and demand always lead to shortages...always.

Interesting photos on the link below. North Korea is socialist. South Korea is capitalist. Who has the ability to turn on lights at night? Socialism always leads to misalignment of resources and shortages.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

What if doctors didn't even have the capital to get in the line for a jab infront of a banker? Is that rational?

Please state this in a different way. I didn't understand.

 

[deleted65604]

Could I sum up your belief by saying that you think it is unfair for some people to have more than others, whether in healthcare or any other aspect of life?

 

[deleted65604]

Ibid, I assume from your use of unnecessary K's at the beginning of words (knub) and past posts, that you are from the UK.

Seriously, thankyou for your insightful comments. You are contributing in a positive way to the discussion. I really do want to hear your response to each of the following questions that I already posed to a different person. I'll try to humble myself and learn from somebody who drives on the wrong side of the road.

Do you think there isn't a problem with millions of illegal immigrants consuming resources and not paying taxes?

What is your political solution is for the current immigration problem. You can get out of this question if you don't think it is a problem?

Do you see a national security risk in not knowing who is here in our country and why?

Don't you think legal immigrants would be a better solution?

Do you disregard more aspects of US law than just immigration law?

Do you believe we are the only country in the world that should have open borders?

Do you dream of a new world order where there are no countries?

Do you think it would be just for me to show up in France, and then demand free medical care while not paying taxes?

Additionally:

Does the UK give free healthcare to the children of illegal immigrants? Does the UK deport illegal aliens if caught? Where are most of the illegal immigrants in the UK from? Do you see inherent problems/ hypocrisy with giving US citizens advice and judging them when there are 3-6 times the number of illegal aliens here compared to the island country of the UK, which is much harder to get to?

Sumguy, I'd be interested in your responses as well. Where are you from and what do you do?

 

[GeneralVeers]

I still want to hear more about "Distributive Justice". I find the concept fascinating, if not completely insane.

 

[Ibid]

Ibid, I assume from your use of unnecessary K's at the beginning of words (knub) and past posts, that you are from the UK.

True.

Seriously, thankyou for your insightful comments. You are contributing in a positive way to the discussion. I really do want to hear your response to each of the following questions that I already posed to a different person. I'll try to humble myself and learn from somebody who drives on the wrong side of the road.

Well, humility is what you get when your empire is gone, not what you have while it is fading away. But I'll bear in mind that judging by your football getups you obviously bruise easily so I'll be gentle. Cf rugby

Do you think there isn't a problem with millions of illegal immigrants consuming resources and not paying taxes?

What is your political solution is for the current immigration problem. You can get out of this question if you don't think it is a problem?

It's a huge political problem. Globalization means that people rightly expect to be able to sell their skills or labour in an international market, not just move capital around. Immigration is good for economies as it allows the market to establish the true price of labour. On the other hand it creates a real problem for unskilled workers in the first world as they typically can't or are unwilling to compete. In the UK 3 million jobs have been created in the last few years but we still have 2.5 million unemployed because immigrants have taken most of those jobs.
The political consensus that immigration is a good thing is leaving large numbers of unskilled people in the first world without political representation, compound this with a global recession and you have the conditions that lead to the election of far right wing and more importantly authoritarian political leaders, in short fascism.

Do you see a national security risk in not knowing who is here in our country and why?

Well, from a US perspective the borders are so porous total knowledge is never going to be possible. Yes, some people you want to keep out and keep an eye on. But lots of them will be citizens as well.
The real trick and I'm not saying this is easy by any means, is to run a foreign policy that won't lead to millions of people outside the country who wanting to hurt you. That is where the real focus should be, keeping track of immigrants is a side show
The lesson from the UK and the IRA is that you have to talk to people. Even at the height of the IRA bombing campaign in London back channels were open between the IRA and the government. Eventually this is what led to a political solution and peace.

Don't you think legal immigrants would be a better solution?

I'd never advocate anything illegal. Yes, increasing the number of legal immigrants is one solution. It is a technical problem to frame legislation around this which again just becomes political.

Do you disregard more aspects of US law than just immigration law?

It's a question of what the law should be and every country will have a unique set of circumstances. Each country to its own. I do think it is a pity that the US has not recognised the International Criminal Court as every other civilised country has. I don't mean that as a dig at you, I just feel it is a pity.

Do you believe we are the only country in the world that should have open borders?

Well from a UK perspective we have just about lost control of our borders. EU law means that anyone legally in an EU country can enter the UK and work. Of course that cuts both way, if you are nuts you can go to France or Germany or a bit more sane, Italy. We are dependent on many many other countries to police their borders. Eg Italy has a real job on its hands with people coming from North Africa. Most of these people head for France and then try to cross the channel to the UK.

Do you dream of a new world order where there are no countries?

No, countries serve a purpose. I do support the UN and principle of the international criminal court though.

Do you think it would be just for me to show up in France, and then demand free medical care while not paying taxes?

It's ok with the French. That is the French system; as long as you are in the country legally they will treat you no questions asked. That's the system. You can come to the UK as well and apply for an NHS number and you will receive treatment. You might be a pensioner and pay no tax or a billionaire and pay no tax or you might get a job and then lose it but you will get treatment based on clinical need and free at the point of delivery regardless of your tax status

Additionally:

Does the UK give free healthcare to the children of illegal immigrants? Does the UK deport illegal aliens if caught? Where are most of the illegal immigrants in the UK from? Do you see inherent problems/ hypocrisy with giving US citizens advice and judging them when there are 3-6 times the number of illegal aliens here compared to the island country of the UK, which is much harder to get to?

Steady on! First I wouldn't lecture or give advice. That is not my place, I just offered a perspective. But yes the border agency works to detain and deport illegal immigrants. While they are in detention they get free health care based on clinical need.
My final though is this, in the UK we spend in purchasing power parity dollars $1800 per head. The US spends $3700. For this the UK population gets total population coverage with all treatment based on clinical need and free at the point of delivery. In the US a large chunk of the legal population has no insurance at all. (the NHS is just a huge pooled risk insurance system, we all belong to the same insurance co in effect).
The kicker is we live longer by several years on average according to WHO numbers. The PPP numbers are from the OECD.
So if you are talking about expense I would say the US has some structural problems and the expense of treating illegal immigrants is a distracting side show.

 

[Ibid]

The best resource to allocate resources is the free market. Look at socialist economies like China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Their people starve while huge stockpiles of food rot in government warehouses. In socialized industries which ignore the free market, ignoring the laws of supply and demand always lead to shortages...always.

Interesting photos on the link below. North Korea is socialist. South Korea is capitalist. Who has the ability to turn on lights at night? Socialism always leads to misalignment of resources and shortages.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm


.

Yes, all that is true. But the question you asked and the one I answered is why is healthcare different from other industry. I could go on. Health is not a consumer product like others. You only get one body. You can always change your utility supplier or buy another car if you make a choice you don't like.

Socialised Health care has not led to shortages in the UK.

Quite the reverse, everyone is covered. In the US with a free market system upwards of 25 percent have no coverage. What is that if not a shortfall??

So, the free market is the best way to define the right price for starchy snack foods but not for health care. Health care is a special case. imo

Consider the ppp dollar comparison I made above. Which system is giving its population the best deal? The one that costs $1800 per head. The one that covers the whole population and the one that delivers the longer life expectancy. The socialised one. Pretty open and shut case imo.

 

[Ibid]

Distributed Justice? I'm assuming this is the same as "Social Justice" which is a veiled term for income redistribution. It is immoral and unethical to take by force property from one person in order to give to another. One person's "distributed justice" is another person's oppression and theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice

As opossed to utilitarianism. Health economists at NICE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence

use the concept along with QUALYs and such when they produce guidance for the UK government.

Apologies for using wiki links but they do the job more succinctly than I would.

 

[GeneralVeers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice

As opossed to utilitarianism. Health economists at NICE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence

use the concept along with QUALYs and such when they produce guidance for the UK government.

Apologies for using wiki links but they do the job more succinctly than I would.

So you evidently feel that it's the government's responsibility to "right that which is wrong" and that to do so involves elimination of personal property rights, in order to rectify those perceived wrongs?

 

[Ibid]

So you evidently feel that it's the government's responsibility to "right that which is wrong" and that to do so involves elimination of personal property rights, in order to rectify those perceived wrongs?

If I am reading you right and I am not sure I am, then what I would say that just because a society choses a socialised health care system for the benefit of everyone that does not preclude other systems running along side it.

The NHS is free at the point of delivery but if you want you can pay to be treated in a private hospital.

The same as you can attend a state school or pay for your education. I don't see a conflict.

Sure you still have to pay tax to pay for a service you don't want but thats the same for lots of things. eg military spending or roads you might not want built.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Distributive Justice is more than just giving the poor some health care. If you read the Wikipedia article it actually seeks to more broadly spread goods and property more evenly among all members of society. The only way to accomplish that is by physically taking property from someone and giving it another person.

In America we used to have charities that would take care of the poor, in fact most of our religiously-affiliated hospitals started out by providing charity care. Why we can't go back to the system I'm not sure.

The government should do two things (at least in America):

#1. Protect our borders and manage foreign affairs

#2. Make sure all the states get along with each other.

Every other function was left up to states to decide. It's a crime that the Feds are involved in healthcare, education, energy, transportation, housing, and welfare. All of those things should be left to the states to tax and spend as they please. The original concept was that each U.S. state would be a separate "incubator of democracy". If you didn't like how Virginia taxed goods, or how Maryland provided a social safety net, you could pick up and move to another state. That concept is a mere shadow of itself as the states have willfully abandoned their duties, and given complete authority to the Feds.

 

[deleted65604]

Funny Ibid...

Is that Che Guevera?

 

[coralfangs]

You are assuming I haven't had direct experience working with this population in a medical setting just because I am a pharmacy student. In that case, you would be wrong. I've worked for a well-known institution for a number of years. I also worked in a community setting and had to deal with many of the situations described in this thread. I am not the "bleeding heart" either. I am just practical. We can complain all we want but the fact remains that they are not going away anytime soon. Turning people away from getting medical treatment is not the best approach to solving the immigration problem.

What's wrong with making an observation about a certain problem in our society?
There are people who abuse the system or those who never contribute back to the society. We still help them but we have every right to comment on their behaviors. For example, we had an alcoholic unemployed woman who has no insurance came into our Burn unit with 60%+ full thickness burn. We had to amputate her right arm and performed many skin transplants over god knows how many months. How did she get her burn? She decided to deep fry okra one night after she drank half a bottle of vodka. To tell you the truth, everyone on the team was a little upset about the cause yet we did our best to try to help her. The total cost of her operations and hospital stays must have been at least 6 figure. This money could be used for little Jimmy with cleft lip whose parents can't afford to get him an operation. Hey, it is what it is. We still do our best for our patients.






ps: I came here because I saw the thread, "Aliens in ER" from the main page and was hoping for something extraordinary..........
quite disappointed

 

[GeneralVeers]

Funny Ibid...

Is that Che Guevera?

Lots of hippie-socialist types use the image of Che, because they think he represents freedom of oppression, and that he fought for the working class.

What they don't realize is that he was a murdering thug, criminal, and a violent revolutionary.

If that's how Ibid wants to "change" society, count me out.