Because it’s cheaper for society in general to do so ? Because the result is healthier, more productive people ? Because if a society/nation doesn’t show concern for the lives of the people who comprise it, why should they feel any loyalty to it at all ? Because it’s morally the right thing to do ? Because you can’t run a society well with a population that has the libertarian attitude that you can take from it and never give back ?
Maybe. Maybe not. I tend to doubt it. and there are other ways to reduce the cost. UHC or NHC, assuming both would be cheaper, are only two ways.
Maybe. Maybe not. Hell, “healthier” is even questionable.
Not providing healthcare does not equal "not showing concern. and it is not necessary for loyalty, the proof being all these many years we’ve not provided healthcare and had many, many loyal americans. People loyal enough to put themselves in harm’s way. and one can feel loyalty to this country for the ideals it stands for and the positive force it has been on both mankind and the world.
Says you. Not everyone agrees. You’re argument from morality is a tautology, begging the question.
How about if you don’t take? That is the point of a libertarian society.
Wrong. Our great experiment in letting the magic free market run a health care system has proven just how inferior it is to a government run system. We are objectively less healthy than the people in countries with a government run system, and getting more so all the time. We are being outstripped in lifespan, general health and even height ! And we are paying more money per person for the inferior care we get.
It hasn’t been much of a positive force. And I don’t see much loyalty from most people, especially people who think like libertarians. What I DO see is the willingness to screw the country until it collapses in wreckage if it’s profitable.
No, the point of a libertarian society is to reduce the common people to powerless, expendable, exploited cattle. The point of a libertarian society is to make sure that the taking is all one way; the top exploiting the bottom.
Your assertions are debatable. But assuming they’re true, so what?
Just because the result of an action is believed to be “good” doesn’t mean it should be done. Providing a free college education to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing a free home to every US citizen might be a “good” thing, but it shouldn’t be done. Providing free food to every US citizen might be a good thing, but it shouldn’t be done.
We have a *limited *federal government. The federal government can’t do anything it wants - it’s limited. Any and all government healthcare should be administered by the states, not the federal government.
But socialists don’t want healthcare provided by state governments. Why? Because it means people would have a choice. (States will compete with each other. If I don’t like the healthcare in my state, I am free to move to another state.) Socialists are anti-choice. They like to force one system on their victims.
In other words, you want Americans to be sicker and live shorter lives than people in other countries. An example of the real agenda of the Right : Malice. The Right isn’t interested in the “freedom” they love to blather about; they are interested in cruelty and oppression. To impose their ideology, for the purposes of exploitation, and just for the sheer joy of hurting others.
That would be less efficient, and less fair.
Garbage. To the extent that “socialists” want a national system, it’s because such a system is more efficient, effective and cheaper. Not to mention fairer; why should someone be condemned to suffering, impoverishment or death because of the state they live in ? And the “they can just move” line is an argument made by people who have no understanding of the limitations and necessities of being poor. Or people who know exactly what the real consequences of such attitudes are, and get off on it.
I want government-funded UHC for everyone, but I am still unclear and doubtful as to how exactly it’s going to be paid for in this current climate of a crashing economy, multiple wars, job losses, etc. I do not think raising taxes to fund such a program is a good idea at all.
We as Americans have to figure out a way to get politicians in this country to reduce expenditures, THEN the funding for such an expansive (and expensive) program could exist by way of fund diversion. I simply do not believe I should have to pay any more taxes than I currently do. Times are tough, and my family is barely getting by.
Eliminating the war in Iraq. Tightening federal and state budgets. Enforcing stricter oversight on all government contracts to civilian entities, wartime or otherwise. Not bailing out bankrupt corporate entities. Etcetera.
The way the current administration has turned on the money spigot like money is water is unsustainable, nor can we do that and fund UHC at the same time.
Something has to give to make this an affordable option for everyone.
We’re paying twice as much per capita, and not covering one third of the population. Medicare takes 3% for administration while for-profit insurance takes 30%.
Your only cause for objecting to public health care is ideological. You’re not going to be able to make an economic argument stick.
Der Trihs: It’s impossible to have both individual freedom and safety & security. It’s an inverse relationship; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. You can’t have both.
I would rather have more individual freedom and less safety & security. You would rather have more safety & security and less individual freedom.
This country was founded on the former. Why are you trying to change it? If you love socialism, why not move to a socialistic country instead of trying to turn our country into a socialistic hellhole?
Why do you keep saying “socialistic hellhole”? Not all countries that have socialized medicine are socialistic hellholes. The Danish and Swiss, for instance, would likely beg to differ.
Our healthcare system is the envy of the world. It is too expensive, yes. But what is in place now can be altered and changed in many ways. No one is arguing for keeping exactly what we have. So, you can stop with that straw man.
No, they want people to pull their own weight. I’m not a libertarian, but think about it this way: wouldn’t it be great if everyone provided for themselves (aside from military, etc.). Now, while that may be unrealistic in total, how about if 99% did? Theoretically, it would be great, right? Well to do that, you have to not provide a ton of stuff to people. Once you do, they get complacent, lazy. And you’ve robbed the country of what could be an amazingly powerful engine—where virtually everyone works and contributes.
No, the point is that we are each entitled to the fruits of our own mind and body. Everyone is equal. The idea is to spur great people to do great things. And a complacent population is not as likely to strive.
That’s why I said maybe. But, seriously, would you really be surprised of what we get in reality is 1) not as good as what you envision? and 2) much more expensive than you envision?
**Many Americans do not have freedom from the fear of going bankrupt for health reasons. **
Latest reports show that even families that though had coverage find that bankruptcy is their only option after the insurers drop them.
Many Americans do not have the freedom to seek a different job.
Job Lock is specially real to families that have one their members suffer a condition that will be considered preexisting if a job switch takes place. And Workers that wish to start a business on their own find that heath care costs but a barrier to it.
Many Americans (and foreign companies) have less Freedom to start a company in the USA thanks to the health care cost
The high cost of health care is already a reason why the USA is not competitive with other nations.
All figures that I’m seeing from Wikipedia on unemployment doesn’t appear to bear that out. Is there some other statistic that measures laziness and complacence that I’m not seeing?
Anecdotal, but I recall with clarity when I was stationed in Hanau, Germany hanging out with German friends that were on the dole in 1991, and they were waiting around for their government subsidy check (as they lived in government paid-for apartments) so they could buy beer or drugs.