What about the right to justice? That doesn’t come cheap, either - does that mean it’s not a right? (And no, I don’t see that the term ‘right’ is in itself politically-loaded, only context does that.)
There’s no shortage of people wanting to become doctors in the UK, despite pay being far worse than in America. It’s true there’s a shortage of qualified doctors - but that’s because Thatcher froze the number of medical school entrants, for short-term financial gain, despite the obvious long-term consequence.
And how does universal healthcare “hamstring doctors with a bunch of rules and regulations”?
It matters to the extent that living in a democracy (here we’re going to pretend we live in the same country), the agreement of the majority (to simplify) is required. But indeed, it isn’t required that you, personnally, agree.
Nope…I’m willing to spend our collective money to make the society I live in a better place. In my opinion, the very basis and “raison d’etre” of a human society, be it a tribe or a large nation state, is solidarity. Hunt together, fend off ennemies, take care of the wounded, feed the elderly… In our modern societies, these goals can’t be achieved directly. Because you don’t necessarily personnaly know the persons in need. So it must be organized indirectly through the government.
Now, you know from where I come.
So, I think we should take care of the wounded, that it’s our duty. You might disagree and think that only your needs matter. Ignoring apparently that if you own any money at all it’s only because you benefitted from what our society offered to you. Like accumulated knowledge, the education you received, the infrastructure you’re using, and all other elements who hold the society together and prevent us from going back to the cave ages, and you to become a wandering hunter-gatherer. You seem to think that the collectivity has no legitimate claim on your money. But it does have such a claim because without the collectivity, you would have nothing.
[…]
See above. Without the support of the society you’re living in, you wouldn’t be able to earn anything.
And so do the military, courts, schools, roads,… Are you suggesting that’s it’s unnaceptable that these too are funded with your money? If yes, then you’re consistent, but I wonder if you have any place in the currently existing society except as a freeloader. If no, then why exactly should healthcare be singled out?
They might or they might not. The college education of your daughter, for instance, takes precedence on the life of someone else’s daughter need for a life-saving surgery only from your point of view. From a neutral point of view, the life-saving surgery takes precedence.
Do you think that anything would be funded if people could freely choose how much to donate instead of being obligated to pay taxes? Healthcare isn’t different.
The fact that we’re both member of the same society (still pretending). Which happens to be democratic. So, I’ve exactly as much right as you to decide how this society should be organized. See above, once again, if you’re not sure why you’d owe anything to this society.
If you would rather own a computer than give the money to the poor, I see no reason to stop you. Yet, if I would rather buy myself a computer than contribute to your universal healthcare, obviously I am in the wrong. Best to just take my money and “allow” me to decide what to do with whatever might be left of it.
I don’t. Can I opt out paying taxes used to build roads? I don’t have a daughter, either. Can I opt out paying taxes used to fund schools? Because currently I’m apparently subsidizing your use of roads and the education of your daughter. I have other priorities, like, say, taking vacations in some pleasant place. Can I get my tax money back? There’s no reason you should take MY money to support YOUR lifestyle.
It’s important to our collectivity in my opinion. That gives me the right to advocate taking food from your table to fund a public healthcare system. Even if you’d rather have a nicer meal. In the same way you could advocate taking food from my table to fund the military, even if I’d rather have a nicer meal.
Once again, if you’re 100% libertarian, then you can disagree with my predicament. Think you’re under no obligation to pay for healthcare, and that I’m under no obligation to pay for roads. Now, let me tell you, if you think you could get by without the support of the society you belong to, you’re seriously deluded. Your daughter won’t ever get a college education. Which would be pointless anyway, since it would be of no use for hunting deers.
If on the other hand, you’re pretty happy that I pay taxes for the maintenance of roads you’re using, then you’ll have to play by the rules, and accept that I’ve exactly has much right as you to decide how much taxes we should pay and how we should use it.
And I’m not going to pay for a public healthcare system that would be in my opinion beneficial, morally justified, and even economically sound for all of us (hence beneficial for you) while letting you off the hook. We’ve no reason to accept freeloaders.
Problem is : that’s only your opinion. Reading the numerous thread about healthcare, it’s pretty obvious that a lot of us are convinced the market is less efficient in the case of healthcare, because it’s not an ordinary good. That is if we agree on the concept that “efficient”, in this case, means “offering the best possible healthcare for the lowest possible price”. I mean that letting improductive people die might be more “efficient” in an absolute sense, but I assume none of us is supporting this option.
You know, I’m not even going to click on this link. It’s the woman who had all those plastic surgeries and now kind of looks like the Cowardly Lion, isn’t it? Just thinking about her makes me queasy.
So, is it your position that if the majority votes that it would be better for the Common Good to reinstate slavery for black people then it must be the right thing to do? I mean, sure, it would be a great reduction of their freedoms, but the work that they do would bring benefits to society as a whole. And, of course, we would ensure that they are fed and cared for. I’m sure that the majority members can find some studies showing that black people are less suited for, say, being doctors and are much better suited for emptying garbage. After all, we need the garbage emptied and there’s no reason we should allow these people to be freeloaders.
I always thought that solidarity was a means to an end–not an end in and of itself. I would say that we band together as societies so that we can each better pursue our individual goals. Apparently, you would say that the purpose is to create a collective, and the goals of its members are immaterial?
You can’t be serious.
I disagree that it is our duty, not because only my needs matter, but because I don’t believe that someone else’s needs matter more than mine. I also don’t believe that my needs matter more. My needs matter more to me, which is why I am in the best position to address them. You, on the other hand, seem to think it is fair for someone else to rank my needs versus someone else’s. The result is that your “need” for universal healthcare is ranked above my need for food, so that money is taken out before I even get my paycheck. It is one thing to say that a person’s need for medicine is important. It is quite another to say that that need is more important than any needs that I may have–even when the money being divvied up is money that I worked to earn.
Society does not offer these things to me. They have to be paid for. And like most libertarians, I am willing to pay for them. You also want me to be wiling to pay for things that I do not necessarily want.
So, without socialist programs, we’re going back to the cave ages? Unless the government provides education, there will be none? Last time I checked, the government is not offering coffee, and yet I have coffee. Can you explain this discrepancy to me?
You are going so far over the top that the air must be getting thin for you. Are you now suggesting that even the cave-dwellers had nothing? Seems to me that without people doing work, that the collective (whatever that is) has nothing. All of these things that you describe are produced by individual people who do the work they do, not because it is their duty to the collective, but because they are willing to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruits of someone else’s labor.
Sure I would, but I wouldn’t be able to earn as much because of the time spend fighting others who would be trying to steal it (somehow, I feel like that is what I am doing right this minute). Are you saying that if this collective disappears that farmers would no longer be able to grow vegetables or that carpenters would no longer be able to build houses? Or is it just me personally that relies on the collective for everything?
Hardly. What I am suggesting is that it is possible for my money fund these things without having it taken from me forcibly and then redistributed by the government. The fact that I don’t want to be forced to pay for things that you think are needed does not mean that I am unwilling to pay for anything. The fact that you think that universal healthcare is Good For Society does not mean that it is, nor does it mean that everyone else agrees. And the notion that the needs of the collective are more important than the needs of the individual is completely opposite to the notion of personal liberty upon which the USA was founded. At one time, a majority of the people in my part of the country were convinced that it was good for society to enslave black people. From where I’m sitting, that does not make it okay.
I am not saying that your universal health care is as egregious as slavery, I am saying that they are both wrong for the same reasons. Whether your personal goal is feeding sick children or getting laid, it does not automatically outweigh my personal goals.
If I am willing to pay for my own healthcare, how am I a freeloader? If you use the government to take my money from me to pay for your own healthcare, how is that you are not? Someone who claims to have a right to healthcare that is paid for with the money I earn is, in my opinion, the very definition of a freeloader.
Exactly. And their need for life-saving surgery takes precedence from their point of view.
No, that would be from your point of view, and you clearly are not neutral. Suppose that my daughter is going to school be a doctor, and–as a result–will be able to perform life-saving surgery on two hundred other people. Now, which takes precedence?
Absolutely. I pay my power bill every month without fail–and there is no need for anyone to “tax” the money out of me. I freely choose to pay for health insurance for my family. I would freely choose to pay to have a car and access to a road to drive it on. Have you ever seen a toll road? How on earth do they get those things paid for? Seems to me the issue isn’t whether anything would be funded; the issue is whether the things that you personally support would be funded. My answer is, it would depend entirely on how many other people supported them–and how much they were willing to give to see them happen.
Well, at least you have made one statement I can agree with.
You say we have equal right, but once your majority makes its decision, my right becomes non-existent–your majority has usurped it. I say that there is no need for you take away my rights in order to exercise yours. I say that if 60% of the people believe that universal health care is a key priority for society, then they can give as much of their own money in order to achieve it. At the same time, if 40% of the people feel universal health care is not important, but that everyone has a “right” to have a steak dinner once a week, then they can give as much they want in order to achieve this goal. But I don’t believe that the beliefs of the 60% outweigh the beliefs of the 40% just because there are more of them. I also think that it is very easy to make “sacrifices” when you don’t have to bear the sacrifice. If you are so sure that universal health care is the right thing to do, you should put YOUR money where your mouth is, not mine.
Are you asking what you can do or what I believe you should be allowed to do? Let me put it like this: You are free to opt out of paying for toll roads, but if you do, then you won’t be driving on them. And no, I don’t think that you should have to pay for my daughter’s education. In the same way, I don’t think that you should have to subsidize television factories if you don’t want to watch TV. There are enough of us who do to ensure that there will continue to be televisions for sale.
That may be true currently. In fact, anyone who pays more taxes than me and drives less is subsidizing me; at the same time, anyone who pays less and drives more is being subsidized by me. But you are the one who is in favor of this, not me.
Well, no, but not because of anything that I believe. Personally, I’d be okay with it, as long as everyone else gets their tax money back, too.
And what makes your opinion more valid than mine, even if you are in the majority?
No, it gives you the right to convince me to support your cause. To my way of thinking, though, it doesn’t give you the right to steal from me any more than it would give you the right to make me a slave.
I don’t advocate stealing. I believe that it harms the collective.
Who is deluded here? You think that society cannot exist unless it forcibly extracts money from its members and redistributes it? You think that if I don’t want to pay for your food then I am a freeloader? You think that libertarians advocate the abolishment of “society”?
If you really believe that we have exactly the same right to make these decisions, why, then, do you think it’s okay for the majority to bully the minority? Sounds to me what you believe has nothing to do with any equality of rights and everything to do with strength in numbers. What’s interesting is that, in this particular case, you’re on the losing side. The majority has not voted for us to have universal health care and we don’t have it. My side won fair and square by the democratic rules you so cherish. Even more interesting, you are still perfectly free to contribute to the healthcare of those who cannot afford it. If on the other hand, we did have universal health care, I would not be free to choose not to. Do you wish to try again to convince me that your way is more fair?
Okay, how 'bout a compromise? You go ahead and pay into a collective healthcare pool, together with everyone else who feels the same way, and you can argue amongst yourselves as to who gets what from it. In the meantime, I will continue to pay for my own healthcare as I have been all along. That way, you get your collective health insurance, I don’t have to pay into it, and I also don’t freeload off of you. And here’s the best part: No laws need to be passed in order to implement it. Everyone who wants to be in the collective can start right now. You can even set up contracts so that everyone in it is required to pay a certain percentage of income and those that are less than a certain amount don’t have to pay anything. You can call it the “Collective Insurance Company”.
Since I am a libertarian, I am perfectly happy with a solution that lets us both get what we think is best for the collective.
What I don’t understand is why are people so outraged at their taxdollars being used for healthcare, but have no problem with hundreds of billions of their taxdollars going to fund a very bloated military whose expenses surpass those of the next six highest competitors combined.
People need medicine to survive. People need education to survive (at least in a literate society). People don’t need coffee to survive. I don’t really see how those things are similar. This is in fact one of the stupidest analogies I’ve ever read, and should seem that way even to people who are anti-national healthcare.
I don’t see a mass movement of people seeking to get rid of property taxes or corporate welfare. In fact, it seems to me that I have to pay for a lot of stuff I don’t use. Part of my money goes to fund the oil industry, which doesn’t concern me, because I don’t drive. Part of my money goes to fund public schools, which aren’t my concern, because I don’t have children. Yet, I pay these taxes, and realize the good it does for society in the long run. Why aren’t you raising a stink about the childless people who have to pay property taxes? Could it be because you benefit from the taxes we pay? “Socialized” healthcare is no different from “socialized” education. The only minor discrepancy is that there’s a whole lot of people who currently benefit from socialized education, and if we took away their “safety net,” they’d start complaining. Majority wins, right?
Okay, then give me my property taxes back. No? Thief!
But it’s all gonna be okay. When Bush cuts the business tax deduction for health insurance, all the employed people will understand what it’s like to suffer for years from chronic diseases because they can’t afford a doctor, or will be faced with the decision between getting a biopsy and putting food on the table. Then they’ll maybe start to understand why there’s so many commies out there in favor of a national healthcare plan. We just need to give it a little time.
Now, you claim that people cannot survive without medicine and education. And my statement is stupid? How do you explain that there are people at all? First came healthcare, then came people?
To be honest, I am not sure what you mean by “survive”. None of us will survive indefinitely. We are all destined to die. Things like medicine and education may prolong your life and they may make it more pleasant, but they are not the reason you are here and they won’t keep you from departing. Can you not admit that you want to live longer and better?
Over and over again, I here the same message: Some things are too important to leave the government out of. And yet, as time goes by, we pay more for education so our children will have less of it, because the government runs it. The government pumps more and more money into helping the poor, while their ranks swell.
If any of these programs were doing more good than harm, then your self-righteous tone would at least be understandable. But they don’t. The libertarian answer: These things are too important to let the government fuck them up.
The analogy I made is not stupid, nor is it subtle, yet it somehow eludes you. I have coffee because I want it badly enough to be willing to trade my own money for it (as opposed to being willing to trade yours for it–hell, I’d trade your money for Amway products). And enough people want it that the market devotes resources to supplying it (and this is for something people don’t even need to survive).
If there is someone who needs medicine and cannot afford it, you claim that they should have it. But you don’t want them to have it badly enough to voluntarily pay money for the cause? I’m willing to bet you have some possessions for which your need is not as great, yet you are not voluntarily giving them up. Why not? I say you are a hypocrite. If these things are as needful as you claim, then you would not need to steal from your fellow citizens in order to achieve them.
Libertarians are trying to start one. You are welcome to join us.
Why do you assume that I am not? Last I checked, that was not the subject of this particular thread.
If there is a hypocrite here, it is not me. Did you miss the part where I said I did not want other people paying for my child’s education?
Agreed.
Absolutely. And, clearly, the majority is always right. Which is why I can’t understand why you haven’t accepted that free health care is a bad thing. Has the majority not spoken?
I’m thinking of trying to assemble a majority to create a rule that socialists are not allowed to speak or write in public places. Hope you don’t mind. I am convinced that is would be better for society, since socialism has been shown not to work.
I don’t have your property taxes any more than I have my own. If I had the power to return them to you, then there would be no need to have this discussion.
Are we not making similar decisions already? Well, in some cases. In others, we are having them made for us. I am just curious, though. If things were to become so grim as you imagine, why would anyone go to work at all? For the good of the collective? Does the fact that a decision can have grave consequences mean that people should not be allowed to make them for themselves? As I understand it, homosexuals are scheduled to go to hell. An infinity in hell sounds far worse than even a lifetime of suffering on earth. I think we should forget worrying on healthcare and use your tax money to forcibly prevent people from being gay.
I notice that you didn’t even consider the possibility of removing the business taxes altogether–in which case, tax deductions wouldn’t exist. What happens then? What kind of choices do we get?
We already understand. You know what’s best. You are uniquely qualified to weigh every person’s wants and needs and determine which are more important. You know the true value of my work, and you also know whose needs are more important than others. We don’t have any trouble understanding this. What we haven’t caught on to yet, though, is how stupid we are in comparison to you. Perhaps, if you will continue to point out the things that I say that you deem stupid, I will finally come to understand my own stupidity when compared to your brilliance, and then I will come to my senses and vote to give you control over all the money earned in the country.
Like you said, it just takes time. I am already starting to really understand how my freedom interferes with your goals for society. Strangely, your freedom does not interfere with mine.
No one really cares about what % of the GNP we pay on health care- what’s important is how much we pay out of our pocket.
Here in America- our (speaking as a person) total tax burden (counting all taxes) was- late time I looked- lower than any other “Industrialized” Nation. Well- except for Turkey, and we could argue that “industrialized” there.
Now, sure- I wouldn’t mind a “bare-bones” “you get a list of Docs and pick from them” type National Health plan. Shouldn’t be too much.
Very few people would dispute that the military is a legitimate government function. There is nothing in the constitution that can be construed as giving the government the power to manage our healthcare system.
I certainly don’t condone a “bloated” military, but even if we assume that is true why would socializing healthcare in some way offset the “bloating” of the military. Surely you’re not advoacting a two wrongs make a right philosophy are you?
Man I haven’t had such a good laugh in a long time.
You’re making some pretty huge assumptions here.
That costs in general are the same in Canada as in the United States, they are not, the cost of virtually all medical hardware is higher because well, the price of everything is higher in the U.S. economy. You can try to “control” the production of every factor of production that goes into the medical industry but eventually you get down to tertiary production fields and you also come to a point where you will have less competitors in the market producing medical hardware and therefor less innovation and ultimatley a degradation in improvements to healthcare.
That doctor’s are profiteers. This really isn’t the case, doctor’s simply deserve and indeed will demand their high salaries. For one, medical school can set people back by up to $300,000 (counting in undergard et cetera) that’s not a crushing student debt you can pay back on a $50,000/year salary.
Also there is the fact that people value doctor’s and almost everyone agrees they should be making alot of money. Furthermore you get the best of the best by offering them incentives, simple rule of economics is people respond to incentives.
In countries that force equality of result you’re damn lucky you have anyone going into the more difficult and arduous fields.
Government bureaucratic costs won’t be unimaginably huge. This is a big one. Any lobbying to get universal healthcare would cost so much pork alone that it would bankrupt the country, and that doesn’t even factor in the base bureaucratic costs of managing a 300m person health care system with certain to be draconian regulations that probably will never provide for everyone at every time they need it.
Not to mention the United States has pressing expenses that other nations don’t have because they don’t have the burden of super power status.
You know what comes directly after “Provide for the common defense” in the list of enumerated powers for Congress? “Promote the general welfare”
There’s nothing in the Constitution that mentions K-12 Education either, yet we still fund it. Every child between the ages of 6 and 18 gets free education. For the most part, we as a society have grown to accept this as a legitimate function of government. What’s the hangup on healthcare? I don’t understand.
