3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I mean, they were game systems .

I mostly agree, though. Highly unlikely that Star Wars has any sort of "universal healthcare."

I shall refrain from pontificating on the proper- or, more correctly, all the im proper systems of government for Star Wars, but suffice to say, big government is impractical to say the least.

Big government is a major factor in the existence of the Separatists. they were trying to get out from under the strangling goverment the Republic had.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Big government is a major factor in the existence of the Separatists. they were trying to get out from under the strangling goverment the Republic had.

They were also a big government, you don’t get a military that size without it.

Just now, Eoen said:

They were also a big government, you don’t get a military that size without it.

They were. It is a foolish way to deal with big government over reach, but it does track with the real world responses.

I always saw the separatists as mega corps aka space apple who have so much cash they feel they can do as they wish

20 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

I always saw the separatists as mega corps aka space apple who have so much cash they feel they can do as they wish

They are smaller mirror of the Republic, with a senate and everything, but their center of power is in the mid rim instead of the core. The big corps are neutral in the conflict but really on the side of the separatists, but supplying both sides.

Depends on the time period. During the height of the Galactic Empire? I would think something similar to America today, dog eat dog everyone for themselves. During the height of the Republic? Probably a lot more like Canada/Australia etc

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Big government is a major factor in the existence of the Separatists. they were trying to get out from under the strangling goverment the Republic had.

Small government is a myth. Small government is a Mad Max hellscape for people who aren't player characters or major NPCs.

4 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

Depends on the time period. During the height of the Galactic Empire? I would think something similar to America today, dog eat dog everyone for themselves. During the height of the Republic? Probably a lot more like Canada/Australia etc

Actually, during the height of the Empire I'd imagine they'd keep the universal healthcare the Republic had for the core worlds and worlds loyal to the Empire, but would nationalize healthcare and then charge money for it on worlds that were neutral, and would outright deny healthcare on worlds sympathetic to the Rebellion to the point that they'd probably nuke hospitals, destroy facilities that were producing medical products, and stop any medical aid being shipped to the planet. For an Empire which drained an entire world's ocean just to make an example of them, this wouldn't be out of the ordinary, and Imperial sympathizers would likely myopically justify it by saying that a Rebellious world would be helping Rebel military and political leaders, so shutting down their ability to heal their population would be seen as a necessary evil to force them back in line. If a world had no government-funded healthcare and had resources to exploit, I imagine they would introduce it to curry sympathy for the Emperor's rule, but if Rebellion popped up on that world, they'd selectively limit it for the population. The Empire was oppressive, but if they weren't selectively oppressive then there wouldn't have been any control over the population at all, no matter if they followed the Tarkin Doctrine. We see this sort of control being done in real world nations with things like food and water and electricity, and I imagine the Empire would do the same with their healthcare.

3 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Small government is a myth. Small government is a Mad Max hellscape for people who aren't player characters or major NPCs.

Why do you think that? We have had small government in the US and it was not as ypu describe.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Why do you think that? We have had small government in the US and it was not as ypu describe.

Really? When?

4 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Really? When?

First, how do you define big government, and how do you define small government?

6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

First, how do you define big government, and how do you define small government?

That's the thing: you can't. A government, pretty much by definition, has to be big to even exist in any meaningful way.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

That's the thing: you can't. A government, pretty much by definition, has to be big to even exist in any meaningful way.

Fine. Then smaller , less centralized, less intrusive government.

Also, small government: A small government is a principle that describes an economic and political system where there is minimal government involvement in certain areas of public policy or the private sector, especially matters considered to be private or personal.

Smaller governments don't necessarily guarantee free citizens and economic prosperity, though. Two of the smallest governments in the world per capita are China and Hong Kong, and nobody's holding those two countries up as paragons of social virtue. And of course, the US and Estonia are two other countries with really small governments per capita, and their citizens are treated just fine by comparison.

As far as democratic socialism goes (not pure socialism, btw; there's a big difference, and the US already has plenty of democratic socialist policies that everyone agrees are good, including conservatives), there are plenty of countries with that kind of government structure which are successful economically and socially, such as Bolivia (drastic cuts in extreme poverty and the highest GDP growth in South America) and Canada. And of course, there are countries where it's failing to improve people's lives, but they typically are countries where it's practiced in a limited manner or had terrible economies and societies to begin with. I don't think it's as simple as "small governments are less intrusive and more successful", because the world isn't that simple. It's about finding what works best for your country and then going with it, and then if another system comes along which might work better, try it for a few years fairly and see how it does, and if it doesn't work, go back to the old system or find one that would work better.

In a fictional example, the Republic was a bloated mess of policy and bureaucracy (a word, btw, which I can never spell right the first time! XD ), and it made for a corrupt society rife with crime that the government was able to do nothing about due to being "bogged down in procedures". But when the Empire came in, it could be seen in some ways as being successful in spite of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship, because it stopped a huge amount of piracy and government corruption (largely by getting rid of most of the ruling government and replacing it with military leaders, but I digress...). However, both were wildly different governments that failed spectacularly and had radically different policies and structures in the same "country". Thus, if you were to take this fictional example as reflecting reality somewhat, it's not about whether one system or another works in an absolute sense. It's about finding a system that works the best for your country.

Let me propose:

It works as whatever makes for the coolest story at your table.

If you want this to be a plot point then it should be something that provides for interesting choices with trade-offs. Or it could be a back-drop to the adventure - you're smuggling medical supplies into a blockaded system or a population is being denied medical care and your diplomat is trying to do something about it, etc.

It could also be an invisible thing that never comes up (though even asking the question pre-supposes this is not the case at your table).

As for setting background:

- The Republic is a super massive government system and Clone Wars covered healthcare being a "galactic" concern for the Galactic Senate, but seems reasonable that many core systems have their own systems (at least supplemental).

- It wouldn't operate according to your real-life political/ideological preferences or assumptions.

1 hour ago, Millennium Falsehood said:

Smaller governments don't necessarily guarantee free citizens and economic prosperity, though. Two of the smallest governments in the world per capita are China and Hong Kong, and nobody's holding those two countries up as paragons of social virtue. And of course, the US and Estonia are two other countries with really small governments per capita, and their citizens are treated just fine by comparison.

That's not what small government means. China is the definition of big government: all-powerful, invasive, and pretty much unaccountable to the citizenry.

1 hour ago, Millennium Falsehood said:

As far as democratic socialism goes (not pure socialism, btw; there's a big difference, and the US already has plenty of democratic socialist policies that everyone agrees are good, including conservatives)

No, not really. Most things people say are "socialism" actually aren't, not really. Take the police, for instance. They provide a common good to everyone and is definitely not redistributionist. The billionaire who can afford private security? His businesses and customer base are all protected by the police. The stockbroker? Security for the companies he's investing in. The person who barely able to make ends meet? A safer neighborhood and place of business. The list goes on and on.

1 hour ago, Millennium Falsehood said:

there are plenty of countries with that kind of government structure which are successful economically and socially, such as Bolivia (drastic cuts in extreme poverty and the highest GDP growth in South America) and Canada.

Not familiar with the situation in Bolivia, but how's that "universal healthcare" working out for Canada? Wait times as much as 600% longer than in the US. And what about the British toddler who was denied treatment (even though donors raised more than enough money to pay for it outright), and even denied the ability to travel elsewhere for treatment? A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything that you have.
(As far as Bolivia goes, it is important to note that often, socialist countries do okay for a little while, then they run out of other people's money. And Venezuela was the richest country in south america before it went socialist)

1 hour ago, Millennium Falsehood said:

In a fictional example, the Republic was a bloated mess of policy and bureaucracy (a word, btw, which I can never spell right the first time! XD ), and it made for a corrupt society rife with crime that the government was able to do nothing about due to being "bogged down in procedures". But when the Empire came in, it could be seen in some ways as being successful in spite of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship, because it stopped a huge amount of piracy and government corruption (largely by getting rid of most of the ruling government and replacing it with military leaders, but I digress...). However, both were wildly different governments that failed spectacularly and had radically different policies and structures in the same "country". Thus, if you were to take this fictional example as reflecting reality somewhat, it's not about whether one system or another works in an absolute sense. It's about finding a system that works the best for your country.

The problem with your reasoning here is that the Star Wars galaxy isn't a country. It is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of unique cultures, "countries," and species. A system that works well for one group may not work at all for another. Thus, a huge, all-encompassing government is always going to struggle in this area. Think of it in the context of the real world. Think of the Republic as a much stronger UN, now think how well that would go. Now multiply it by many thousand.

15 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Big government is a major factor in the existence of the Separatists. they were trying to get out from under the strangling goverment the Republic had.

It wasn't government size so much as inaction and corruption. While those can often be factors in big government, they can actually be factors in any government. The Republic survived for a long, long time, and the seperatists only popped up in the last little bit of it. The government incompetence was all part of Palpy's plan.

15 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

I always saw the separatists as mega corps aka space apple who have so much cash they feel they can do as they wish

The separatists were world that had not aligned with the Republic, or had at one time, but broke away due to the failings of the republic (incompetence and corruption).

They were no particularly wealthy or powerful. They got played by Palpy just like the Republic did. Neither side had a massive military to begin with. Palpy sent Darth Saruman to help guide and lead the Seperatists. Darth Saruman convinced them that to stay independent from Republic control, they'd need a huge army to protect themselves. They didn't have a standing military, so droids were the best option, but droids cost money, so the seperatists had to take out huge loans from the banking clan. Palpy had manipulated the Republic to pay for a giant clone army. Towards the end of the war both sides made massive expenditures to again increase the size of their armies in hopes of crushing the other side (again manipulated by Sheev and Saruman).

The sad part about the prequels is that they never really focused on how well formulated everything was by Sheev. In fact they did such a bad job explaining it that everyone believes the trade federation was part of the Seperatists and that the shadow council were the leaders of the seperatists. Neither of these things are true.

Palpy manipulates the Republic to suck at it's job and become really corrupt. This causes a rival government to grow into existence. Palpy sends Saruman to control and manipulate this other government. Palpy forms a shadow council of the various power brokers in the universe. This shadow council includes the banking clans that handle all banking in the universe, the droid/weapon manufacturing clans, and the trade federation that controls most of the galaxy's trade routes. You know, the people most likely to profit from a gigantic galaxy wide civil war. Palpy tells them to do as he orders and he'll make them more wealthy than they could imagine. Saruman convinces the seperatists to create a giant droid army. Meanwhile Palpy creates the clone army behind the Republic's back and then forces them to use it. Palpy has the trade federation (republic members) put an embargo on his home world while making sure the senate can't do anything about it, then uses his place as a victim to rise to power. Palpy then sends Obi to a non-republic world as a spy, he gets captured, and Palpy sends an entire army to a non-republic world which is quite clearly an act of war in order to save his spy. In the end, he destroys the shadow council, destroys the Jedi, and takes control of the Empire while cutting off all support to the Seperatists allowing him to have an easy win in the war. It's honestly pretty compelling, but almost none of this is covered in the movies. You have to read the novels, comics, and watch the cartoon shows to pick up on all the hidden details.

8 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

It wasn't government size so much as inaction and corruption. While those can often be factors in big government, they can actually be factors in any government. The Republic survived for a long, long time, and the seperatists only popped up in the last little bit of it. The government incompetence was all part of Palpy's plan.

The separatists were world that had not aligned with the Republic, or had at one time, but broke away due to the failings of the republic (incompetence and corruption).

They were no particularly wealthy or powerful. They got played by Palpy just like the Republic did. Neither side had a massive military to begin with. Palpy sent Darth Saruman to help guide and lead the Seperatists. Darth Saruman convinced them that to stay independent from Republic control, they'd need a huge army to protect themselves. They didn't have a standing military, so droids were the best option, but droids cost money, so the seperatists had to take out huge loans from the banking clan. Palpy had manipulated the Republic to pay for a giant clone army. Towards the end of the war both sides made massive expenditures to again increase the size of their armies in hopes of crushing the other side (again manipulated by Sheev and Saruman).

The sad part about the prequels is that they never really focused on how well formulated everything was by Sheev. In fact they did such a bad job explaining it that everyone believes the trade federation was part of the Seperatists and that the shadow council were the leaders of the seperatists. Neither of these things are true.

Palpy manipulates the Republic to suck at it's job and become really corrupt. This causes a rival government to grow into existence. Palpy sends Saruman to control and manipulate this other government. Palpy forms a shadow council of the various power brokers in the universe. This shadow council includes the banking clans that handle all banking in the universe, the droid/weapon manufacturing clans, and the trade federation that controls most of the galaxy's trade routes. You know, the people most likely to profit from a gigantic galaxy wide civil war. Palpy tells them to do as he orders and he'll make them more wealthy than they could imagine. Saruman convinces the seperatists to create a giant droid army. Meanwhile Palpy creates the clone army behind the Republic's back and then forces them to use it. Palpy has the trade federation (republic members) put an embargo on his home world while making sure the senate can't do anything about it, then uses his place as a victim to rise to power. Palpy then sends Obi to a non-republic world as a spy, he gets captured, and Palpy sends an entire army to a non-republic world which is quite clearly an act of war in order to save his spy. In the end, he destroys the shadow council, destroys the Jedi, and takes control of the Empire while cutting off all support to the Seperatists allowing him to have an easy win in the war. It's honestly pretty compelling, but almost none of this is covered in the movies. You have to read the novels, comics, and watch the cartoon shows to pick up on all the hidden details.

They also regulated some corps and gave others cut outs so that this increased dissatisfaction by both creating fat cats and disgruntled outer rim communities. Added more regulations on outer rim communities.

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Not familiar with the situation in Bolivia, but how's that "universal healthcare" working out for Canada?

Just fine thanks. You don't live here, don't pretend by reading your selective information you have any idea what you are talking about. My ex just broke her leg. She was treated immediately and had surgery the next day. I've been hearing about the death of Canadian health care from Americans since the Reagan years. Same BS arguments every year. It's sad, and kind of pathetic, how these armchair experts will believe arguments promoted by health-care industry funded "think tanks" rather than people who actually live it.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but wait times for people in the US with no health care, or health care they don't dare use because they can't manage the co-pays (and that's about 70 million people, or twice the population of Canada), are infinitely longer than anywhere else, including Canada. So your argument carries even less water from a practical standpoint, and from a moral standpoint carries zero.

*sigh* and da**, I waded in. I swore not to 🙄 I'll wade back out.

On 3/4/2020 at 9:21 PM, BipolarJuice said:

Game systems aren't representative of canon necessarily, although you could just hand wave this away as either 1) that represents the actual cost of the treatment, labor and supplies totaled or 2) off-worlders pay full price since they aren't covered under the planetary governments healthcare system - if it even has one. The Star Wars galaxy is beyond comprehension in just how large it actually is and you'll probably find everything from fully socialised medicine to completely private systems to total lack of medicine as you cross the galaxy.

Not necessarily , no, but, until the Disney buyout, they were . More specifically, the non-game mechanics information was.

Regardless, my point remains. all of the actual information we have from existing canon and Legends sources suggests that there was no "Universal Healthcare".

18 hours ago, whafrog said:

Just fine thanks. You don't live here, don't pretend by reading your selective information you have any idea what you are talking about. My ex just broke her leg. She was treated immediately and had surgery the next day. I've been hearing about the death of Canadian health care from Americans since the Reagan years. Same BS arguments every year. It's sad, and kind of pathetic, how these armchair experts will believe arguments promoted by health-care industry funded "think tanks" rather than people who actually live it.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but wait times for people in the US with no health care, or health care they don't dare use because they can't manage the co-pays (and that's about 70 million people, or twice the population of Canada), are infinitely longer than anywhere else, including Canada. So your argument carries even less water from a practical standpoint, and from a moral standpoint carries zero.

*sigh* and da**, I waded in. I swore not to 🙄 I'll wade back out.

Americans are downright silly when it comes to discussing health care.

We claim to be better than everyone at everything, but we apparently can't tackle health care. We complain about how universal health care would result in long lines, and having to wait for treatment, but we have people that die in waiting rooms and we are outright refused treatment by insurance companies. Others defer treatment because even with insurance they can't afford the care they need. We complain about how much it would cost without realizing that we already pay for it now, and a universal system could control those costs. We complain about how bad universal healthcare would be, but try to find one person, even insured, that doesn't complain about our current health care system. They complain about the costs, the co-pays, the waits, the authorizations, the skyrocketing costs of prescriptions/services, the horrible billing systems, the low quality of care. 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. 22% of divorces are due to money issues...I'm sure medical costs don't figure into that right? People, even insured people, avoid preventative care due to costs. Our current health care system is a travesty, and a burden upon our society.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not necessarily , no, but, until the Disney buyout, they were . More specifically, the non-game mechanics information was.

Regardless, my point remains. all of the actual information we have from existing canon and Legends sources suggests that there was no "Universal Healthcare".

When a man sells his privately owned company because he wants to get rid of it, we do not call this a buyout. Not even if we don't like the company he sold it to.

10 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

Americans are downright silly when it comes to discussing health care.

We claim to be better than everyone at everything, but we apparently can't tackle health care. We complain about how universal health care would result in long lines, and having to wait for treatment, but we have people that die in waiting rooms and we are outright refused treatment by insurance companies. Others defer treatment because even with insurance they can't afford the care they need. We complain about how much it would cost without realizing that we already pay for it now, and a universal system could control those costs. We complain about how bad universal healthcare would be, but try to find one person, even insured, that doesn't complain about our current health care system. They complain about the costs, the co-pays, the waits, the authorizations, the skyrocketing costs of prescriptions/services, the horrible billing systems, the low quality of care. 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. 22% of divorces are due to money issues...I'm sure medical costs don't figure into that right? People, even insured people, avoid preventative care due to costs. Our current health care system is a travesty, and a burden upon our society.

Well universal has most of those problems worse. But then I have yet to see government run anything well. And most of those increased costs are direct results of government intervention...I have yet to have anyone explain how adding more people with paychecks between a patient and their doctor is going to decrease costs.

4 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

When a man sells his privately owned company because he wants to get rid of it, we do not call this a buyout. Not even if we don't like the company he sold it to.

Yes, we do. They bought him out. By definition, all "Buy out" means is to purchase a controlling share in a company .

Quote

buy·out

/ˈbīˌout/

Learn to pronounce

noun

the purchase of a controlling share in a company.

Disney bought the controlling share in Lucsasfilm from George Lucas. That is, by definition , a buyout.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, we do. They bought him out. By definition, all "Buy out" means is to purchase a controlling share in a company .

Disney bought the controlling share in Lucsasfilm from George Lucas. That is, by definition , a buyout.

No. A buy out referes to a specific type of transaction. Lucas was not bought out. He sold his company. The difference is Lucas specifically deccided he wanted to sell. Buy outs are involuntary.