In what country do you live in that uninsured motorists who didn’t wear a seatbelt are left to die on the highway when they get into accidents? Whether you have insurance or not makes no difference, everyone pays regardless.
I do not expect other people to spend their time or money to save me, without compensation from me.
What part of “paying your own way” in life is so hard to understand? But what right can I force another to pay for my own medical treatment?
Good gravy, I’m glad I’m getting old.
How many hundreds of thousands should every family set aside for catastrophic accidents in your world?
Sounds like Detroit. 
In my (free) world, a family can either choose to set aside money, or purchase insurance, or just take the risk and accept the consequences if they choose wrong. In my world, no man should be able to force you to do something against your will.
I don’t want your help, or “society’s” help. I’ll live and die by my own choices. How about just letting me be? Why is that so hard? Why are you so determined to meddle in my affairs?
Please repeat after me: Other people’s choices are not my business. Other people’s choices are not my business. Other people’s choices are not my business.
Why is that so hard?
Because it’s an extremely self destructive position, and goes against the whole reason society exists; much less government. If everyone acted the way you recommend, society would collapse as individual after individual was crushed by problems too big for one person to handle. There’s no such thing as a “rugged individualist”; only weak individualists.
Because your world does not exist. You want to talk about evil, in your world we would let people who suffer catastrophic accidents or diseases rot on the streets. NOBODY but the extremely rich can prepare for massive medical expenses, agreeing that we all suffer one tiny bit instead of letting one person suffer a lot is what society is all about. You want to live in a world like that then remove yourself from from civilization because you clearly do not grasp the concept.
My personal opinion is that competent adults should be allowed to do stupid things.
You want to drive without a helmet or seatbelts? You want to consume alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, and crystal meth? You want to eat ten cheeseburgers for breakfast every day? Go ahead. There should be no laws to prevent people from hurting themselves. Laws should only exist to prevent people from harming other people - and that should be limited to direct harm not some nebulous harm to society in general.
I acknowledge that there will be indirect costs to these things. Some people who do stupid things are not going to conveniently kill themselves right away but are going to die slowly at taxpayer expense. That sucks. But the cosy of having to occasionally support some moron who hurt himself is less than the cost of people giving up their liberty to make their own decisions and live their own lives.
Buying insurance is not the same as selling your soul for a free doctor visit. You can implement UHC without using it as an excuse to dictate mundane behavior like diet, exercise, and recreation. If you want to penalize smokers who develop smoking-related illnesses and receive government assisted health care, do so. It’s like billing mountain-climbers for their own rescue. But outlawing tobacco is as wrong as outlawing mountain climbing, or ladder climbing for that matter.
Grown adults should be able to make their own decisions about their own welfare when no one else is harmed. If we feel that their behavior incurs unjustified monetary costs on others due to their recklessness, we can make them foot the bill like any other civil suit.
Do you have a crystal ball, that lets you know what proposed laws are going to line up with reality? Because there *was *opposition to seatbelts, and there are large parts of the world where few object to motorcycle helmets - are the laws of reality different there?
Personally, I think the government *should *step in to prevent people self-harming in the name of individuality, because to me, that’s a pretty sure sign of mental illness of some sort. Yes, make exceptions for euthanasia in the case of pain or the like, but other than that, no. On the other hand, any government mass intervention better be backed by hard evidence in favour. Stuff like the War on Drugs shouldn’t fly in a rational country.
And who are you to define what my “health” should be? Or what would constitute “harm” to it?
How so? Are you saying that using heroin is not harmful? If you feel the government has a right to prevent people from harming themselves, doesn’t it have a right to oppose heroin use?
I think he’s just trying to make the point that by no stretch of the imagination are our Drug Laws based on any objective, scientific or medical review. Historically they are based on racism and xenophobia.
You know, I’m of the same mind as you. The only problem is that some people won’t save money or buy insurance, and then what. Now, you might want to start a society where things run as you envision, and I might even join you. But here in the real world, when someone doesn’t prepare and is then faced with an accident, we ARE going to be picking up that tab. And since we are, I think we have a right to put some constraints on people.
If you’ve worked this out in your head, I’d genuinely be interested in hearing how you think—realistically—our society should/deal with the guy who has no insurance and was just involved in a major accident and is being rushed to the emergency room.
I think you could make the argument that society in general is a form of insurance. We all collectively group together to reduce our individual risk.
And they don’t work. Which makes them simply pointless, wasteful, and destructive with no upside.
I’m not talking eating 3 cheeseburger meals a day or smoking a little here. I’m referring to suicide, cutting and the like. Nobody kills themselves just to be an individual, AFAIK. It’s either mental illness or euthanasia.
And I’m not claiming to be the one doing the deciding. That’s for the professionals.
No. I’m saying the War on Drugs is not the most (or even “an”) effective way to deal with that problem. Which any casual glance at Prohibition could have told us.
Yes, it has a right to oppose heroin use, or any other self-harm habit, once it has the facts and medical evidence all out in the open. Then it can take those steps that it deems both necessary and effective, from regulation of production, to education, to rehabilitation. I don’t think criminally jailing people for a self-harm habit is effective or necessary.
You can. But then that raises the issue of one of us intentionally and repeatedly engaging in what is known to be dangerous behavior. We all share similar risks of burning ourselves on a stove or tripping down stairs or even getting hit by a car. And we can all agree to cover each other when accidents from things like that happen. But then you have a small group of individuals who up the ante by doing things like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, skiing extreme terrain, riding a bicycle with no helmet and no brakes (yes, it is done), smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day. If we are all to agree to insure each other, do we have the right to curtail certain high-risk behaviors.
This is a tough one for me.
What’s your alternative? I’m not trying to be flippant but face facts - heroin addicts are usually pretty committed to taking heroin. They’re not going to stop just because the rest of us tell them it’s a bad idea. If you’re committed to stopping them, involuntary confinement seems to be a necessary step.
Sometimes the government does know better. Most people are specialists at work but generalists as consumers. The Food and Drug Administration restricts my freedom by preventing me from buying lead contaminated Jello, to take an arbitrary example. As my knowledge of Jello manufacturing procedures is pretty limited, I can handle that restriction on my freedom, emotionally speaking.
Modern conservatives believe that reputation will solve these problems: their argument basically ignores the widespread food adulteration and contamination that occurred in the 1800s in the absence of stringent regulation.