|
On January 05 2012 04:35 dafunk wrote:
One again everyone of you thought about this on economic point of view. When theres a much more important problem.
From my POV, it would just be a crime to let people die when theres medicine for it and richer people can afford it.
In my country people are born equal in rights.
Liberty, Egality, Fraternity is what my country was build on.
Egality means you cant die from a curable disease because you cant afford it.
You can't wait 10 years for the product to be cheap enough. So what you imply is to let people die from that disease.
In a country that stand on pretty religious standards, that tells that life is holy and that you only have one, thats totally crazy just to be able to stand those two positions.
When in the other hand medicare is a totally substainable politic budget wise in the most developped country in the world.
The problem is the balance between Liberty and Equality.
Should the government force people to exercise (ie anyone with a BMI over say 27 has to show up at a government gym for 30 minutes a day and perform predetermined routines.)
Should the government only allow you to eat certain foods
Should the government ban things that might upset your psychological state (sorry that woman is Not on your preapproved dating list, she'll really mess you up)
Those are ridiculous, but saying that people should Never die when it is "preventable" is just as ridiculous as saying we should Never do anything to prevent deaths.
There is a balance, and I realize that in France Liberty<Equality, in the US that tends in the other direction Equality<Liberty.
[of course both are interlinked, etc.]
|
There is an intense campaign by the Republican party to lower, by as much as possible, the number of people that can vote in the upcoming federal elections.
DO NOT believe anyone telling you that Republicans get the vote of the poor and uneducated.
DEMOCRATS get their vote, and the Good Ol Party is doing everything in its power to make the registration and voting process as unfriendly and complicated for the uneducated as possible.
|
On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:
[quote]Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing?
The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others.
And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade.
(I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.)
And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine?
[quote]
What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire)
What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though?
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:47 cameler wrote:
There is an intense campaign by the Republican party to lower, by as much as possible, the number of people that can vote in the upcoming federal elections.
DO NOT believe anyone telling you that Republicans get the vote of the poor and uneducated.
DEMOCRATS get their vote, and the Good Ol Party is doing everything in its power to make the registration and voting process as unfriendly and complicated for the uneducated as possible.
I find that funny considering most rural areas are poor and uneducated, and also heavily republican. On the other hand, inner cities areas are also poor and uneducated, but usually democrat. It's not just the poor and uneducated part that makes a difference.
|
On January 05 2012 04:39 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:33 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Yet if it was an extremely contagious disease that only infected and killed poor people, you'd have the same people shouting that it was unconstitutional. Which is what the healthcare system you are proposing comes down to. The rich get what they need in excess and the very poor get to depend on rich people feeling magnanimous for surviving. What an excellent world you're creating. Who said anything about poor people? If someone is an immediate danger to those surrounding him, because he's infected with something absolutely terrible the person needs to be removed, and quarantined... I don't see how only removing rich people would help? If it was some terrible disease the person is probably gonna die with or without healthcare, and it's not like being quarantined is fun, you don't quarantine someone for their well-being, you quarantine them for the well-being of those around them... Duh? And of course, look if the cure for something was absolutely enormously expensive, the rich will get it first... do you have a problem with this? How do you think it should go by alphabetical order? Whoever is willing pay the most will probably get it first, however we're not talking about a situation like that, because in a situation like that most people are going to die either way, giving it away for free isn't going to save the humanity, because if there was so much of it it wouldn't be so expensive... this isn't a Hollywood movie... Show nested quote +One again everyone of you thought about this on economic point of view. When theres a much more important problem.
From my POV, it would just be a crime to let people die when theres medicine for it and richer people can afford it.
In my country people are born equal in rights.
Liberty, Egality, Fraternity is what my country was build on.
Egality means you cant die from a curable disease because you cant afford it.
You can't wait 10 years for the product to be cheap enough. So what you imply is to let people die from that disease.
In a country that stand on pretty religious standards, that tells that life is holy and that you only have one, thats totally crazy just to be able to stand those two positions.
When in the other hand medicare is a totally substainable politic budget wise in the most developped country in the world.
And most things are expensive because of government regulations. Medicine generally, once invented and tested can be mass-produced, and so its price should drop immediately, the only reason it doesn't is because of the regulations, licensing, and other stuff which jacks up the cost of development, and distributing. If the government wasn't interfering the only medicine that wouldn't be affordable in the first place would be the one that there's literally not enough of, or if there's not enough doctors out there to operate or w.e, meaning that government intervention can't save you. The government can't give you something that's not there.
And how is someone with no income / ressources is supposed to get a surgery that is going to last 5 hours, require 10 people and would cost thousands of dollars ?
I'm curious.
|
On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though?
"Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "
This happened in Tennessee too. They let the animals die in the fire.
|
On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though?
I used up all my money to buy lottery tickets, and I didn't win, so now I'm hungry, I went to McDonalds, so they should give me a free burger right?
|
On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though?
That is a very good thing, his house burned down because he didn't pay to protect it. In the same way that someone who never changes any oil on their car will end up with a worthless car. It was a Stupid thing for the man to do, and the stupidity paid off in the way stupidity Should. (Unless he was saving/investing the money for something better, or had a fireproof house.)
|
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
Hey, it's the other sane person on the Internet. We should have a beer sometime.
Rights and civil liberties refer to the philosophical idea of natural rights. A quick-and-dirty method of testing whether something is a natural right is whether you would be in possession of that right if you were the last person left on earth. In such a case, you would have virtually all of the rights outlined in the American Bill of Rights and many more, as the BoR is not an exhaustive list of natural rights. One right you wouldn't have, of course, is the right to someone else's services.
The American medical system has been increasingly a disaster since WW2, and associated federal costs stand out as the primary fiscal problem afflicting the nation. Wars may come and go, but as the baby boomer generation gets older and continues to rack up increasingly massive expenses via Medicare, the government will be left with some unappealing options to curtail expenses, assuming that it doesn't instead opt to destroy the economy with long-term deficit spending and eventually insurmountable national debt. This is the same problem that other nations with universal healthcare have encountered, and one that is entirely predictable--when you couple unlimited demand for medical services with limited supply, you're left with a system characterized by shortages of labor and medication. You're also left with rationing of care and medication that extends well beyond the limits of typical triage, which is a problem that has affected every nation that has a socialized system. And this is just the status quo of US medical care that we've had for the past 60 years--when you consider the chilling effect that the PPACA (Obama's initiative to force citizens & employers to purchase healthcare from private companies) has had on hiring across the nation due to the cost uncertainty associated with potential employees, you have a system that goes from awful to hellish. At this point, I honestly don't know whether the mediocre, rationed, and artificially expensive medical care provided in nations with socialized medicine is worse than the morass that we have in the US.
The free market solution is certainly the best one, as it would reduce the cost of healthcare across the board via increased competition while paving the way for the return of free clinics run on a charitable or voluntary basis. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have.
Preventing my government from spending itself into oblivion and creating a full-on, world-shattering economic meltdown would also be a convenient benefit.
|
On January 05 2012 04:51 dafunk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:39 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:33 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Yet if it was an extremely contagious disease that only infected and killed poor people, you'd have the same people shouting that it was unconstitutional. Which is what the healthcare system you are proposing comes down to. The rich get what they need in excess and the very poor get to depend on rich people feeling magnanimous for surviving. What an excellent world you're creating. Who said anything about poor people? If someone is an immediate danger to those surrounding him, because he's infected with something absolutely terrible the person needs to be removed, and quarantined... I don't see how only removing rich people would help? If it was some terrible disease the person is probably gonna die with or without healthcare, and it's not like being quarantined is fun, you don't quarantine someone for their well-being, you quarantine them for the well-being of those around them... Duh? And of course, look if the cure for something was absolutely enormously expensive, the rich will get it first... do you have a problem with this? How do you think it should go by alphabetical order? Whoever is willing pay the most will probably get it first, however we're not talking about a situation like that, because in a situation like that most people are going to die either way, giving it away for free isn't going to save the humanity, because if there was so much of it it wouldn't be so expensive... this isn't a Hollywood movie... One again everyone of you thought about this on economic point of view. When theres a much more important problem.
From my POV, it would just be a crime to let people die when theres medicine for it and richer people can afford it.
In my country people are born equal in rights.
Liberty, Egality, Fraternity is what my country was build on.
Egality means you cant die from a curable disease because you cant afford it.
You can't wait 10 years for the product to be cheap enough. So what you imply is to let people die from that disease.
In a country that stand on pretty religious standards, that tells that life is holy and that you only have one, thats totally crazy just to be able to stand those two positions.
When in the other hand medicare is a totally substainable politic budget wise in the most developped country in the world.
And most things are expensive because of government regulations. Medicine generally, once invented and tested can be mass-produced, and so its price should drop immediately, the only reason it doesn't is because of the regulations, licensing, and other stuff which jacks up the cost of development, and distributing. If the government wasn't interfering the only medicine that wouldn't be affordable in the first place would be the one that there's literally not enough of, or if there's not enough doctors out there to operate or w.e, meaning that government intervention can't save you. The government can't give you something that's not there. And how is someone with no income / ressources is supposed to get a surgery that is going to last 5 hours, require 10 people and would cost thousands of dollars ? I'm curious.
How is a person that's somewhere in the woods who can't reach a phone, and can't contact anyone supposed to get his insulin shot if he has no money either? Well he's not, he probably won't.
How is a person that doesn't live in a large city that has soup kitchens or w.e, but doesn't have any money at all to buy food supposed to get food? Well he might not, or someone may give him some food or w.e
It's called personal responsibility, and of course there are charities, free clinics that work for charity money, and etc.
You're talking about an extreme case where someone has absolutely nothing, and in these situations there are still people WILLING (key word here,) to help out of the goodness of their heart. If someone has absolutely nothing he's going to have to rely on charity that's the only answer really...
However there are those that have very little, and have worked very hard to get it, they will be able to get more for their money in terms of health-care, and they will be able to negotiate the price based on the urgency of their need.
|
On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have.
Utopians lol =)
Only in America?
|
On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America?
if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from?
|
On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from?
Because they are human.
It is absolutely self evident that humans continue to be creative and work hard once they have escaped the immediate problem life threatening poverty.
The key to understanding the world must be observing the world, not half baked rationalisation blacked up by some streaks of paint on a white board. The extreme libertarian position is utterly blind to observable data.
|
On January 05 2012 04:52 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:48 Haemonculus wrote:On January 05 2012 04:33 Krikkitone wrote:On January 05 2012 04:28 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. No, a large reason that an opt-in fire protection service doesn't work is because fires NEED to be put out that aren't even on the property of the person where the fire is at for the safety of the people around them if THEY paid for the fire protection... So people will be getting a free ride if they didn't pay, simply because the neighbors don't want to risk the fire going over to their territory. So I guess I would agree, that in case of some kind of extremely dangerous contagious disease, it shouldn't matter whether the person has insurance or not, the government should come in with hazmat suits, and remove the person, but this isn't even part of standard health-insurance, it's more of a straight up public service, because it's not like the person will have a choice about whether or not to be taken away. Fire protection isn't even a high-cost accident from the point of view of the fire department, it doesn't cost them a lot of money to come in and put out a fire... It costs a lot of money for the person who lost the stuff, so what you're really talking about is home-fire insurance, and that works just fine as opt-in. Actually opt-in/out fire protection DOES work in more rural areas.(where one house is far enough from another house) In the mountains in California a few years back there was a story about a guy who didn't pay his fire fees/taxes whatever, so when his house caught on fire, the fire service made sure everyone was out of the house and then just let it burn. (basically they treated it as a wild fire) What the fuck how can you tout that as a good thing though? I used up all my money to buy lottery tickets, and I didn't win, so now I'm hungry, I went to McDonalds, so they should give me a free burger right?
You're comparing a burger to your house burning down when people are paid to save houses from burning down. That's not something you should have to pay for. A burger is something you should have to pay for. AND if you're that desperate and can prove the need you can get food stamps.
|
On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from?
You sure use a lot of empty theories and rhetorical questions.
I'm not exactly happy for the flaws of the Canadian system, but to say that something like healthcare in the US has been enjoying low prices and high quality thanks to private system is just BS. I hear horror stories all the time about people who pay dozens of grands a year for insurance and getting shafted when they needed the service they've paid for. Not to mention the extreme rise in prices of drugs. Things you can get for a couple of dollars in India would cost hundreds in the good old USA.
Forget about rights and liberty and what not, if a man is sick, and society has the means to help him, why the hell would you ignore him for the sake of "liberty of teh individual".
Obviously there will never be universal socialized medicare for a country with a huge population like the US anytime soon, to say that it's the best you can do is just blatant defeatism.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:12 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from? Because they are human. It is absolutely self evident that humans continue to be creative and work hard once they have escaped the immediate problem life threatening poverty. The key to understanding the world must be observing the world, not half baked rationalisation blacked up by some streaks of paint on a white board. The extreme libertarian position is utterly blind to observable data.
Observable data says that there are a ton of shitty jobs that only get done because the people doing them have needs and wants. You think someone wants to be a ditch digger, janitor, or McDonalds worker? Well, I'm sure there are some, but most do it because if they don't they can't support themselves.
|
On January 05 2012 05:20 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:12 Dapper_Cad wrote:On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from? Because they are human. It is absolutely self evident that humans continue to be creative and work hard once they have escaped the immediate problem life threatening poverty. The key to understanding the world must be observing the world, not half baked rationalisation blacked up by some streaks of paint on a white board. The extreme libertarian position is utterly blind to observable data. Observable data says that there are a ton of shitty jobs that only get done because the people doing them have needs and wants. You think someone wants to be a ditch digger, janitor, or McDonalds worker? Well, I'm sure there are some, but most do it because if they don't they can't support themselves.
You aren't disagreeing with my point, you are ranting.
I say people continue to work hard after they have escaped poverty. You say that people in poverty work hard.
Do you see how you have missed my point?
|
On January 05 2012 04:08 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:03 Haemonculus wrote:
But do poor people *really* deserve health care? C'mon.
I guess it all depends on how you want to value/view the good of your country. Bottom line GDP, or quality of life for your citizens? Well do poor people deserve phone service? phone service can save lives too... If you let the free market operate, MORE people will actually have access to a higher quality service. Only the poorest of the poor in the US don't have phone service. If the free market was allowed to operate, and healthcare is indeed more important than phone service, than there would be more people with SOME sort of healthcare than there are people with phone service. The government doesn't go around giving everyone phone cards, or quarters so that they could make emergency calls just in case, and yet somehow not being able to make a phone call is almost never an issue.
The government gives poor people subsidies to pay their monthly phone bill. Just fyi.
|
On January 05 2012 05:02 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 05:00 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 04:56 Voros wrote:Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. That may not suit the utopians who don't understand the real-world consequences of universal healthcare, but in a world characterized by scarcity of commodities, it's the best we have. Utopians lol =) Only in America? if everyone has a right to everything they need why should anyone bother to do anything? And once no one is doing anything, where are all those things that everyone has a right to going to come from?
Oh don't come with that argument dude. We're not talking about personal possessions, we're just talking about healthcare.
So because you think universal healthcare is communism little kids with poor parents have to die?
|
These biases some of you people have about people in poverty is a bit disturbing. Also assuming someone bought lottery tickets and other bullshit means they deserve to have their houses burn down? Some of you need to learn a little empathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
