If the homeowner has paid, he is entitled to the service. Failure to provide it would be breach.
Truly, your pettiness knows no bounds. TubaDiva provided this font for me, and I intend to use it. I do not intend to waste her thoughtfulness in the manner that you so often waste your wit.
Well,
My free opinion (based on facts) is that we are wasting more money tan any other nation for the same health care.
Most bankruptcies, were you lose everything, are due to health care costs,
Bean counters right now can not be taken to task (private entities) when they decide who gets treatment or not and not the doctors. And yes, even when life is on the line.
My brother had to work several years in a soul crushing company because it was one of the few that had a heath plan that accepted the preexisting condition of his wife. It may not be slavery to you, but it is close enough to conclude that it is nonsense to have health care connected to your work, we should have the freedom to change jobs without fear.
There’s a difference between preferring vouchers or private schools and believing that our current education system steals from teachers.
Do libertarians really believe the latter?
I agree. Let’s remove “rights” from the equation. You believe that treatment to stop bleeding should be provided, but not other life-saving treatments. Why?
No. It is a caricature of our position.
Cool, I’m glad we live in a society where you can express that freely on the internet!
As I said in the very post of mine you’re quoting, “no one should take your property without cause.” I didn’t present any of the rights as being absolute, society should protect property rights, people shouldn’t have their property taken, destroyed et cetera without cause. If you’ve gone bankrupt property is going to be taken with cause.
Again, from the same post you’re quoting, I explain that these rights are passive rights. As in, “you should have the right that X is not done to you.” Meaning you should be secure from people arbitrarily taking your property, people taking your life period except in self defense, government suppressing your opinion and you should be secure in your liberty, and it should only be taken from you with cause by the government.
You dying because you can’t afford medical care isn’t someone killing you.
That’s tough. His liberty was never at stake, he could have quit at any time.
Ok, so we’re back at square one, when I asked those who believe universal health care if theft why they don’t think universal education is theft.
Cost/benefit. I think our system is currently working well enough. I don’t define myself as a libertarian. I’m sort of an older era, traditional conservative Republican. This means I think government should do its best not to get in the way of the free market, that taxes are fine but we have to be reasonable and we have to be reasonable about what we’re spending money on.
I believe we have finite resources in the United States. I believe that with our currently finite resources we are better off not having universal health care. I think our present system works okay, although I think that it is distressing how interconnected private insurers and the government are getting, I think that in fact explains a lot of our problems right now.
I have to go away for a bit but I’ll explain more of my feelings on this a bit later.
If I could see most not having any repercussions with the livelehood of the family I would agree.
If you could find most families willing to suffer more and have less freedom because they will have to spend more time taking care of mom, just because the job of the breadwinner was shitty, then I would agree.
As it is you are only doing the classic “talk is cheap” here.
And knowing that this is not happening in other developed countries, I see that it is still only fools that think this is a status that could not be changed.
Nope, in this case talk is expensive:
According to the World Health Report of WHO, The total spending on heath for France is 9.8% for the UK is 5.8% and for the United States is 13.7%
We do that now and it sometimes turns out to have been a very bad idea.
Damn! What a well deserved Pitting this is. I just got done reading the GD thread that led to this one and was about to do it myself.
Thanks for saving me the time and effort, denquixote, after all the heartless scumbag is hardly worth either one.
May you end up feeding off trashcans one day, Martin Hyde. An with no health insurance of course.
I don’t disagree. But I think that the proper reaction to that is to deal with the instances in which harm comes to the children rather than wrestling control from the hands of every parent everywhere. State control of education turns out bad quite often as well, but I don’t see you advocating taking it completely out of the hands of the State.
Sorry to hear about your brother’s wife, and I hope things work out OK.
But… what that anecdote tells me is that we need to disconnect health insurance from our employment. No one worries about not being to get car insurance if he changes jobs.
By allowing companies to deduct the cost of health insurance, we have pretty much built non-portability into the system. We don’t need universal healthcare to fix that problem.
That withholding thing was the brainchild of the early IRS. It’s a great way to leech money. If people had to pay their taxes by writing checks or buying money orders, it would raise an eyebrow of even the leftiest among them.
I don’t think it is big deal if the solution to that is called universal healthcare or not.
It’s not a matter of what it’s called. Your brother was reluctant to change jobs because he’d have to change health insurance, too, which is difficult and expensive if you (or one of your dependents) has a pre-existing condition. But if he, and not his employer, were given the tax deduction on health insurance, he would probably have his own coverage that would be independent of his employer. It wouldn’t matter one bit if he changed jobs because he’d still have the same insurance.
All I’m saying is you don’t need the government to take over healthcare in order to fix the current problem of non-portability. That’s a “feature” of our tax code, and is not inherent in the concept of private health insurance.
Even more the family of my brother lost their insurance, period. In fact the last maneuver of the company was to move to another city to make many just quit and so no severance pay or other benefits, my brother however did the almost impossible and commuted hundreds of miles to wait the inevitable: the company folded (It is very clear that was the intension) and at least he got unemployment benefits.
Then he had to wait for a year to get a government job (very poor area and he is stuck with a house) that could cover the preexisting condition and that was because by being unemployed they had access to care. Of course that is not a status he appreciated being in and he worked hard to get the government job. His family is better now, but sure as heck I would not want them or anyone else to go through that.
(And to this day they are too proud to admit they had to go into bancrupcy, but I figured that out)
And I believe the price would go up under government-ran health care. Or quality would go down. Maybe it was in the thread which produced this pit thread, but I’ve already explained why I think Americans pay more for health care than other countries.
I don’t believe I ever said that rights aren’t violated in other countries, or even the United States. Nor did I say anything was unchangeable, although I must admit I’m not really sure what your statement meant as I feel it was vague and lacking context.
If we’re talking about my personal conception of the four essential rights that government/society should protect and hold most valuable then no, that can’t change, unless I change my opinion.
Very rich people in the US spend a lot of money on getting top specialists and elective surgery. That could easily account for the discrepency