# It is acceptable for people to die because they can't afford the proper treatment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956 "2010-03-18T23:28:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/81 "2010-03-19T17:03:47Z")
How does all this square with conservatives’ opposition to abortion? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/82 "2010-03-19T17:07:46Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Suppose a child is drowning in a swimming pool and I was nearby, and instead of helping him I decided to lounge comfortably in a lawn chair, crack open a beer, and watch him drown. After all, he’s going to die someday anyway. Can’t prevent it. > > If I gave a lecture about how the kid should have learned to swim and how it wasn’t MY responsibility to help him would probably fall on deaf ears because it’s a lame excuse for callous inaction. You’d probably call me an asshole, and you’d be right to do so. > > In this case it’s even worse. The Democrats are rushing to a rope to extend to the drowning kid (or rather 45,000 people of all ages under 65) and the Republicans aren’t merely failing to help, they are standing firmly in the way of the rope shouting “NO” as loudly as they can. I suppose if a child was drowning you would crack a beer, lounge comfortably and expect the government to show up. Don’t you see that government involvement LOWERS personal responsibility? Why should I help anyone if the government will do it instead? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/83 "2010-03-19T17:08:45Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > How does all this square with conservatives’ opposition to abortion? I think you are trying too hard is what I think. Personally, I AM a conservative and pro-abortion ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/84 "2010-03-19T17:18:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Funny you should mention that. [Here](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html) is a table showing automobile deaths per 10,000 people over time. It was in the mid-20s from 1930 - 1980, and then dropped to 15 today. Perhaps government requirements for seat belts, air bags, and safer cars had something to do with it. So, government is doing the driving, and has saved hundreds of thousand of lives. No, government is not doing the driving. Mere speed limts and safety regulations do not equate to what the government is attempting to do with health care. A better anology would be for the government to determine the routes we are required to take to get where we want to go (assuming it’ll give us permission to go there in the first place), where we have to buy our gas, and that we have to subsidize the cost of automobiles and insurance for everyone so that no one has to go without. > [@Voyager](#): > > No, but a proper role is to force businesses to add features so it is less likely that the vicissitudes of life kill us. I disagree. It is not the responsibility of government to get involved in protecting us from the vicissitudes of life, period. The proper role of government is to protect our national interests and otherwise stay out of things so that we can live as free from governmental interference and dictates as possible. This country was founded on that premise. We can not live freely and, ahem, be all that we can be, if we have to turn to our government rather than ourselves to provide for our needs, because he who pays the dough calls all the shots, and if someone or something else is calling all the shots, you are not free. (And I don’t care what’s going on in Europe, the more government gets involved with health care the more it will start to dictate how we live. European health care systems are relatively immature and they will not always function as they do now. The same will happen there eventually as well.) > [@Voyager](#): > > Do you really think that anyone is saying that healthcare, which is now 17% of our GNP, is going to fall to 1/2%? Maybe we’re talking incremental costs here, just possibly? Maybe we are, but that’s not what **Blalron** said, which was: > [@](#): > > To put things into perspective about the costs of this bill, the total will be one half of one percent of our total GDP. Clealy people are supposed to read this and think “Cool! This great new [del]titty-baby[/del] whiz-bang government-mandated health care thing is only gonna cost me one-half of one percent of my income. Hell, I can handle that easy.” ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/85 "2010-03-19T17:21:02Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > So you oppose public schools, police forces, and the military, I take it? C’mon. The military spending is mandated by the constitution. Public schools and police forces are, in theory, funded by the states or cities. See the difference? States can mandate insurance for every resident, or higher taxes for all sorts of pet projects, and every resident has the right to pack their bags and move to another state (see CA and NY). Here we are talking about the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/86 "2010-03-19T17:36:24Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > To put things into perspective about the costs of this bill, the total will be [one half of one percent](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) of our total GDP. Krugman did not say that. Your cite says that it will reduce the deficit by .5% by the second decade. Even this is smoke-and-mirrors…you know they will not cut medicare and they will include a doc fix. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/87 "2010-03-19T17:40:30Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > C’mon. The military spending is mandated by the constitution. Public schools and police forces are, in theory, funded by the states or cities. See the difference? States can mandate insurance for every resident, or higher taxes for all sorts of pet projects, and every resident has the right to pack their bags and move to another state (see CA and NY). Here we are talking about the federal government. Now do federal highway funding. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/88 "2010-03-19T17:45:58Z")
Federal highway funding? You mean that club that the U.S. government uses to beat states into submission on a virtually limitless number of issues, despite the fact that their citizens have paid just as much into the program as anyone else? That Federal highway funding program? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/89 "2010-03-19T17:50:36Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well…because the employed are going to be paying for it, one way or the other? I’d say that employment has a rather profound effect on health care, all things considered. 😉 But do you realize when you say “employed” you are really saying, “employed by a company that provides a group insurance plan”? That’s my problem with the current system. If was a case where everyone that was employed got a group based health plan I’d go back to debating against creationists. There are lots of ways to be employed that don’t provide for a group based health plan. Personally, I think Americans should be disgusted by the fact the “American Dream” is now a job that provides health insurance. Forget whether or not it’s meaningful, useful, or productive. That it’s a 1 hour commute with less pay. Today, a job means “something that provides health insurance.” Not something that provides income. Income has become the perk, you grow up, go to school, so that you can get a job with health insurance, and maybe make a little extra spending money after paying for your medical expenses. > [@xtisme](#): > > …But when I hear these glowing, over the top praises for UHC (it will be cheaper, better AND more available! It’s MAGIC!) I get the same feeling as when folks are discussing how we’ll replace all our coal fired power plants with solar and wind generators, and this will be cheaper, cleaner AND make all the forest animals love us, like in a Toyota commercial. > > It twinges my skeptical bone when someone tells me that a new system is going to do everything for everyone, cost less and provide better care than what the majority are getting now. What do you find skeptical? It is not an untested theory. How many industrialized countries (and several un-industrialized countries) have to have UHC before you’ll be convinced? I think that’s what confusing me the most. The US spends more than any other country, but doesn’t get better results. Ergo, you could be spending less to get better results. And there are no glowing praises for UHC, it sucks. There is rationing, there are wait times, there are taxes, cutbacks, shared hospital rooms, old equipment, brain drain to countries where doctors are higher paid. It’s a very easy system to argue against. But do you know what sucks more? The current system. Why? Because there is rationing, wait times, taxes, cutbacks, shared hospital rooms, old equipment, brain drain to countries without crippling malpractice lawsuits, insurance companies, insurance forms, denial of claims, rescission, insurance premiums, co-pays…it costs more and provides less. > [@xtisme](#): > > _cough cough_ “Sis…what kind of job do you have that you have to wait 6 months before your policy kicks in? I started my new job last week and my policy has already kicked in. You sure you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole there? You always did that when we were kids…” Are you denying that there are policies that don’t kick in right away? Do you think that because you got a new job with instant health insurance that everyone can? > [@xtisme](#): > > But MOST jobs provide health benefits. Right, most, not all. And that’s “most jobs”, and not “most means of earning income.” As an example, if you went out to a restaurant, there is a pretty good chance the cook doesn’t get health insurance. Technically he has a job, earning income, if he’s a good cook he’s getting pretty good income, but no health insurance. _cough cough_ Enjoy your salad. As I said above, you have changed the definition of job to be “that which provides health insurance.” I make really good money in the stock market, and could make a living doing it from home, but it wouldn’t provide health insurance. I could also make a lot of money catering, but again, doesn’t provide health insurance. Even if I start my own business, it won’t be able to provide health insurance. I could own a rental unit and make good money, but again, no health insurance. Lots of ways to make lots of money, but none of them provide health insurance. > [@xtisme](#): > > That’s why the system has lasted so long. And for those who don’t have regular health benefits, there are fall backs they can use. Again, that’s why the system has lasted as long as it has…it serves a majority of people in this country adequately, to the point where most people aren’t all that fired up about having it change. To clarify, it serves the majority, not everyone. It basically serves enough people (50%+1) that change is impossible. So you have a system where the minority suffers and dies because the majority is nice an complacent. Are you okay with that? Is that a system you are proud of? > [@xtisme](#): > > Oh, tell them that they will get magic health care (i.e. that it will cost them less a month, give them better service AND make them feel good because everyone will get their piece), and they are going to be on board…hell, convince me that this will be the case for me, personally, and I’D be fully on board too! Throw in a chicken in every pot (or, at least in my own pot), and perhaps a few interns and show me where to sign! Again, it isn’t magic, the rest of the industrialized word has been making it work for decades. It is well establish. > [@xtisme](#): > > Yeah, we need farmers. Are you claiming that farmers can’t get insurance?? Are farmers in danger of dying off, so to speak, due to their lack of health care, leaving us all starving and forlorn? I don’t actually know what farmers get for health care, if you want I could ask around. I do know that if they are independent the aren’t getting a group policy plan from a company. What do you think they do for health insurance? Is it okay for a farmer to die because they can’t afford proper treatment? > [@xtisme](#): > > IIRC, there are something like 20-30 million people without formal insurance. That means they can’t get regular checkups and such…it doesn’t mean they can’t get any health care at all, or that they can’t get prescriptions or even checkups. That said, there are between 300 and 400 MILLION American’s…so you are talking about less than 10%. And, again, it’s not like those 10% can’t get any health care at all…it’s that they don’t get regular health care. So it’s okay for 10% of the population to die because the can’t afford proper treatment? Are you okay leaving off 10% of society? Is that your acceptable threshold? 11% too much, 9% just fine? Why not consider a system that goes for 100%? > [@xtisme](#): > > Could our system be better? Yeah…it could. Should we push for reform…yeah, we should. Should we try to ensure that those ~10% get better care than they are getting today? Yeah…I think we should. What’s the best way to do this? Damned if I know. Would you like a list of options? I can provide examples of 30 other countries that are able to do it better than the current system. > [@xtisme](#): > > But to get back to your original OP, we as a society accept every day that decisions made or resources available are going to cause some number of deaths for the greater good. … > > If you go to a UHC system, there will be some people who will die that wouldn’t have died…just as there will be some people who will live who would have died under the current system. > -XT Of course people will die under a UHC system, 100% of people in fact, how is that for a startling statistic. To put that into perspective, 34million Canadians are going to die over the next 80.7 years. That’s almost the entire population of California! Okay, so you have two system to choose from, wouldn’t you want to pick the system that provides better care, for lower cost, with fewer deaths? It’s not magic, or secret, or theoretical. 49 other countries have higher life expectancy, while spending less. So which one do you choose? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/90 "2010-03-19T17:55:15Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Federal highway funding? You mean that club that the U.S. government uses to beat states into submission on a virtually limitless number of issues, despite the fact that their citizens have paid just as much into the program as anyone else? That Federal highway funding program? Yes, THAT one. Do you like it or not? Wanna yank it? Watch the highways erode? Expect the states to jack up the taxes to pay for it (or go the california deficit route)? Make every tiny street a toll road (or let the small streets decay)? Sell the roads to private corporations who will charge you unregulated fees to allow you drive on them? What’s your preference? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/91 "2010-03-19T17:58:01Z")
You’ve gotta be kidding me. My preference would be that it pay for the highways that the tax dollars it has collected were allegedly supposed to pay for without the government threatening to withhold them in order to force state compliance on other issues. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/92 "2010-03-19T18:00:46Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You’ve gotta be kidding me. My preference would be that it pay for the highways that the tax dollars it has collected were allegedly supposed to pay for without the government threatening to withhold them in order to force state compliance on other issues. So in other words, you _are_ in favor of the federal government implementing federal taxes and using them on federal programs with nationwide expenditures and effects. The defense rests! Oh, and you don’t like internal government coersion. Irrelevent, but commendable. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/93 "2010-03-19T18:11:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So in other words, you _are_ in favor of the federal government implementing federal taxes and using them on federal programs with nationwide expenditures and effects. The defense rests! The defense may rest, but it rests too early. I have no problem with programs that benefit everyone, which ease of travel and interstate commerse do. What I disapprove of is the government taking assets from people who’ve earned them and giving them to people who haven’t and trying to “take care” of us and “provide” for us, and shield us from the vicissitudes of life, such as health care and bankruptcy. How long will it be until the left starts agitating for federal programs to ensure that no one goes bankrupt? How long until it wants to make sure everyone has a car? Gasoline? An apartment or house? Internet access? Lawn care? Haircuts? Newspapers? > [@begbert2](#): > > Oh, and you don’t like internal government coersion. Irrelevent, but commendable. It’s not irrelevant if you’re going to bring federal highway funding up as an example of government social spending. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/94 "2010-03-19T18:25:50Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, government is not doing the driving. Mere speed limts and safety regulations do not equate to what the government is attempting to do with health care. A better anology would be… No, there isn’t a better analogy, period. Analogies are a stupid waste of time, stop trying to contort it so that the government looks scary. We get it, you’re scared of the government. Out of curiosity though, do you think it’s acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment? > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The proper role of government is to protect our national interests and otherwise stay out of things so that we can live as free from governmental interference and dictates as possible. This country was founded on that premise. We can not live freely and, ahem, be all that we can be, if we have to turn to our government rather than ourselves to provide for our needs, because he who pays the dough calls all the shots, and if someone or something else is calling all the shots, you are not free. (And I don’t care what’s going on in Europe, the more government gets involved with health care the more it will start to dictate how we live. European health care systems are relatively immature and they will not always function as they do now. The same will happen there eventually as well.) Let’s break this down to show how ridiculous it is: > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The proper role of government is to protect our national interests and otherwise stay out of things so that we can live as free from governmental interference and dictates as possible. Well, I consider health care to be of national interest, so does that mean government gets to play a part? We spend a lot of money on national security, wouldn’t preventing an outbreak of the plague be part of that? And as I said before, what is the point of preventing death by terrorism when we allow death by easily preventable medical conditions. So who is going to protect you from multinational corporations? Looking back, it was in a company’s best interest to sell toys with lead paint, and to put toxic chemicals in dog food. Remembering back to fight club, companies have formulas for deciding when to have a recall. Cost of litigation and bad press vs cost of repairing a bunch of stuck accelerators. I guess one option is to get protection from the mob. But then who is going to protect you from them? You might be better off if you start accepting that you live in a socialist country, and that as far as I can tell there aren’t any non-socialist countries you’d really want to live in. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > This country was founded on that premise. Are you sure? Were you there? When they founded the country what do you think medical costs were like? I find it strange that they weren’t able to see into the future and draft a proper constitution to cover these sorts of situations. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > We can not live freely and, ahem, be all that we can be, if we have to turn to our government rather than ourselves to provide for our needs, because he who pays the dough calls all the shots, and if someone or something else is calling all the shots, you are not free. Exactly, he who pays the dough calls the shots, ahem, insurance companies. What makes you think you’re more free now? Because your employer lets you choose between 6 options from two different companies (probably owned by the same company). Tell me, right now, who do you turn to to provide for your needs? What does that even mean? I think you’re less free because you have to choose a shitty job at a shitty company so that you get health insurance. I think you’re less free because you can’t leave your job without losing your insurance. I think you’re less free because you have the risk of losing everything to medical costs. You are not free to be all that you can be, unless it provides a group based health policy. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > (And I don’t care what’s going on in Europe, the more government gets involved with health care the more it will start to dictate how we live. European health care systems are relatively immature and they will not always function as they do now. The same will happen there eventually as well.) Exactly, you don’t care what’s going on in Europe. It’s European so it sucks. Their governments are scary and control their daily life. Does Japan, New Zealand and Australia count as Europe? How long do they have to have UHC before you’ll admit you were wrong? What about countries like Hong Kong and South Korea? ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/95 "2010-03-19T18:29:15Z")
Perhaps it’s a matter of which statistic you’re looking at - mine say that ~80% of this country is satisfied with the health care and/or health insurance. In another thread, I provided a cite from the New England Journal of Medicine that shows that “preventative care” turns out to be a wash. It does not save healthcare dollars. Do I want people to die from lack of healthcare? Of course not. I would like to see where this 45,000 number comes from, and any additional study as to how the behavior of the patient contributes to that. Because, I do feel pissed off that I would have to pay for Joe Six-Pack who smokes 2 packs a day and beats his kids. Above, a study was trotted out that pre-natal care can save money by preventing forms of mental retardation, as well as a “heart attack” guy who can avoid a massive MI through medical care. Here’s the catch - both of those outcomes are almost wholly dependent on the behavior of the patient. The retardation is caused by low birth weight, and assumably, the MI is mostly caused by lifestyle behaviors. How, exactly, is a doctor’s visit going to prevent the medical problem? By telling the patient about the risks? Come on - smokers see the risks every time they light up a smoke - it’s the pack for goodness’ sakes! The medical industry sucks in America, but IMO, the proper way to deal with it is not a massive, sweeping government mandate. We need to look at Kerry’s catastrophic plan, HSAs, insurance regulation, etc. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/96 "2010-03-19T18:32:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The defense may rest, but it rests too early. I have no problem with programs that benefit everyone, which ease of travel and interstate commerse do. What I disapprove of is the government taking assets from people who’ve earned them and giving them to people who haven’t and trying to “take care” of us and “provide” for us, and shield us from the vicissitudes of life, such as health care and bankruptcy. How long will it be until the left starts agitating for federal programs to ensure that no one goes bankrupt? How long until it wants to make sure everyone has a car? Gasoline? An apartment or house? Internet access? Lawn care? Haircuts? Newspapers? You mean you disapprove of the government taking assets from people who’ve earned them and giving access to the road to to people who haven’t and trying to “take care” of us and “provide” for our roadway needs, and shield us from the vicissitudes of road wear, such as potholes and the inability to drive safely at high speeds? How long will it be until the left starts agitating for federal programs to ensure that no one is defrauded? How long until it wants to make sure everyone has a right to an attorney - for _free_? Property rights? Inheritances? Police access? Firemen? Schools? Votes for women? Damned lefties! Yeah. Putting aside they hysterical screed of the horrific slippery slope that we’re all teetering on the very brink of, if you have a moral objection to the legal/governmental _ability_ to implement and fund UHC through taxes, you should logically object to federal highway dollars too, since it’s the exact same process. This is, of course, presuming that logic is getting within fifty feet of your position. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It’s not irrelevant if you’re going to bring federal highway funding up as an example of government social spending. The construction process of load laying and leveling and all the labor and expenses and unions involved in that are relevent too. Make sure to bring them up every time highway funding is mentioned. And what about that shade of yellow they use to paint the stripes? Debate time! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/97 "2010-03-19T18:36:23Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > …When they founded the country what do you think medical costs were like?.. Quite low, actually, as leeches and mud were freely available. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/98 "2010-03-19T18:38:17Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The defense may rest, but it rests too early. I have no problem with programs that benefit everyone, which ease of travel and interstate commerse do. What I disapprove of is the government taking assets from people who’ve earned them and giving them to people who haven’t and trying to “take care” of us and “provide” for us, and shield us from the vicissitudes of life, such as health care and bankruptcy. How long will it be until the left starts agitating for federal programs to ensure that no one goes bankrupt? How long until it wants to make sure everyone has a car? Gasoline? An apartment or house? Internet access? Lawn care? Haircuts? Newspapers? > > It’s not irrelevant if you’re going to bring federal highway funding up as an example of government social spending. Well, federal highways benefit everyone, even those that don’t pay taxes. Were you aware of that? Lots of people out there are benefiting from interstate commerce without paying into it. Are you bothered by that? Did you also notice that there are conditions for using the interstate highway system? Did you know you have to be licensed by the government. Are mandated to have insurance? Required to follow rules of use? Health care can be just like that. It can benefit everyone. It doesn’t have to scare you. For the record I also hate internal government coercion. It will suck if the US gets UHC and the government uses it for coercion. But they aren’t synonymous. You know what, I’m not sure that I can think of a way the Canadian government dictates our way of life the way you describe. We have taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (so does the US). We have seat belt laws (so does the US). We don’t have a special tax on junk food. We aren’t forbidden to engage in risky behaviour. This sort of thing gets joked about a lot, but nothing ever comes of it. Can you point to an actual example that scares you so much? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/99 "2010-03-19T18:41:42Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > You know what, I’m not sure that I can think of a way the Canadian government dictates our way of life the way you describe. We have taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (so does the US). We have seat belt laws (so does the US). We don’t have a special tax on junk food. We aren’t forbidden to engage in risky behaviour. This sort of thing gets joked about a lot, but nothing ever comes of it. Can you point to an actual example that scares you so much? Based on his “Internet access? Lawn care? Haircuts? Newspapers?” screed, I think it’s clear that what he fears is not the present, but **THE FUTURE**. :eek: In the future, you will have to pay taxes for a nationally subsidized free haircut program. It’s unavoidable. You have my pity. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956/100 "2010-03-19T18:41:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > May I summarize the thread? > > _tap tap_ 10 million dollar treatment _tap tap_ Get a job \*tap tap \* Gummint taking my money _tap tap_ > > I’ve never seen so many people tap dancing around a simple yes/no question. It is not a yes or no question in the real world. You are about to die. Would I give you a bandage and stitches? Sure. Would I give you my kidney? Nope. See - I can’t just answer Yes. Should everyone be covered? Yes. Should everyone get the finest CEO level care with private rooms, top of their class surgeons, and the latest drugs and devices? No. We have to define the minimum care we will deliver, and everything above that requires personal payment of some sort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-acceptable-for-people-to-die-because-they-cant-afford-the-proper-treatment/532956.md?page=6)